£3 

I 

•j? 

cd 

CL 

^ 

.5 

x  !• 

a. 

*& 

03 

-*- ._ 

— 

.§    * 

Q. 

§>    ft 

"o 

4m^Z 

£ 

S       ft 

a> 

j 

2           O 

tfl 

; 

< 

0) 

4 

o        fc 

£ 

M 

*5i               H 

1        GO 

St 

•5 

P4 

i_ 

& 

-W-* 

^ 

r$ 

C* 

>> 

*Q 

_Q 

^ 

^ 

-a 

$ 

!    1 

-t-« 

r; 
CD 
if) 

0) 

CL 

8 

* 

^ 

> 

S>  !c 

v.     .Vt^\  Tsl  ry^H^ 


V    * 


* 


•-*  * 


A 


SERIES  OF  LETTERS, 


ON 


THE  RELATION,  RIGHTS,  PRIVILEGES  AND 
DUTIES 


OF  BAPTIZED  CHILDREN, 


BY  JOHN  M'FARLAND, 

Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Paris,  Ky. 


LEXINGTON,  KY. 

PRINTED  BY  JOSEPH  G.  NORWOOD, 

300K  AND  JOB  PRINTER,  NORTH-EAST  CORNER  OF  MA£j 
AND  MILL  STREETS. 

1828. 


V\  \ 


To  Subscribers,  and  to  the  Members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church, 


The  publication  of  the  ibiiowing  Letters,  has 
been  delayed  sometime  beyond  the  period  contem- 
plated. The  author  was  fully  aware  of  the  seri- 
ous responsibility  attached  to  the  publication  of  his 
views,  which  some  consider  new,  and  of  very  injuri- 
ous tendency  to  the  Church,  which  God  has  purchas- 
ed with  his  own  blood.  He  has  now  heard  the 
main  subject  partially  investigated  in  a  session,  and 
presbytery — and  his  general  and  more  peculiar 
views  discussed  in  the  Synod  of  Kentucky;  and  no 
books  have  been  neglected  that  were  within  his 
reach,  which  could  afford  any  aid,  in  the  examina- 
tion of  the  important  subject.  It  is  impossible  to 
say  how  the  author  may  hereafter  be  treated,  or  his 
sentiments  canvassed ;  but  nothing  has  vet  taught 
him  to  expect,  a  calm,  scriptural  REFUTATION. 
If  such  a  thing,  however,  should  appear, he  will  be 
thankful  for  it.  Replies — personal  remarks — dog- 
matical assertions,  impeaching  of  motives,  &c.  he 
has  experienced  in  some  measure,  but  these  things 
cannot  destroy  FACTS — or  make  the  word  of  God 
of  none  effect — cannot  in  the  present  day  screen 
►error,  or  refute  sound  arguments.  The  publication 
is  now  made  under  the  deliberate  and  mature  con- 
viction that  the  cause  of  TRUTH  requires  it,  and 
that  it  may  profit  the  Church  of  God. 
Paris.  Ky.  March,  1828. 


Copy-right  secured,  according  to.  Law. 


LETTER  1. 


Documents,  and  certain  considerations  zuhich  are  givcn^ 
as  reasons  for  agitating  the  subject. 

Dear  Sir: 

You  inform  me  that  you  have  heard  muck 
respecting  my  views  and  discussion  of  the  relation, 
and  duties  of  the  baptized  members  of  the  church; 
and  that  the  report  which  has  gone  abroad  is,  that 
I  am  both  novel  and  erroneous  on  this  subject.  As 
a  friend,  you  wish  my  views  in  writing,  and  advise 
me,  in  justice  to  myself,  to  publish  them  to  the 
world.  I  have  received  similar  communications 
from  others,  and  after  much  prayer  and  reflection 
have  concluded  to  comply  with  your  advice.  I 
hope,  however,  I  have  a  higher  motive  than  to  ren- 
der justice  to  myself.  I  am  not  my  own,  nor  am  I 
o  seek  my  own,  but  the  honour  of  my  Master,  and 
the  interests  of  his  kingdom.  And  I  am  not  at  all 
anxious  to  defend  my  character  against  false  and 
slanderous  reports,  farther  than  is  necessary  for  my 
usefulness  in  the  gospel  ministry. 

I  am  fully  aware  of  the  force  of  prejudice  in  good 

and  pious  people •  and  how  difficult  for  an  author 

A* 


6  LETTER  I. 

to  please  the  critics,  who  read  and  decide  for  their 
readers  what  is  sufficiently  correct,  and  elegant 
both  in  literature  and  religion.  After  publishing  I 
expect  still  to  be  misrepresented  and  condemned 
as  heretical  by  multitudes,  who  have  not,  and  will 
not  read  for  themselves,  one  single  page.  I  have  no 
sanguine  anticipations  of  any  speedy  happy  results. 
The  deep,  and  extensive  reform  called  for  in  the 
church  respecting  her  youth  is  not  to  be  affected  by 
my  feeble  pen.  I  may,  however,  excite  to  such  an 
investigation  as  may  terminate,  with  other  causes, 
under  the  direction  of  the  infinitely  wise  and  mighty 
Lord  of  all,  to  restore,  "the  kingdom  to  the  Saiyits" 
and  "turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the  children, 
and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  the  fathers*" 

That  there  were  good  reasons  for  agitating  the 
present  subject,  the  following  documents  and  obser- 
vations will  show. 

In  January  1826,  at  a  meeting  of  Ebenezer  Pres- 
bytery, of  which  I  am  a  member,  the  following  re- 
quest, by  one  of  the  brethren,  was  handed  in,  viz. 
The  session  of  Millersburg  church  requested  an 
answer  from  the  presbytery  to  the  following  ques- 
tion. "What  course  should  a  session  pursue  with  a 
baptized  member  of  the  church,  who  has  come  to 
years  of  maturity,  and  is  habitually  guilty  of  open 
immorality?"  The  presbytery  refered  said  session 
to  Book  ii.  of  Discipline,  chap.  1,  and  specially  to 
sec.  6th. 

"Resolved  that  all  the  church  sessions  belonging  io 


LETTER  I.  % 

this  presbytery  be,  and  they  hereby  are  enjoined  to 
deal  with  baptized  members  under  their  care,  ac- 
cording to  the  aforesaid  chapter  and  sections;  and 
that  session  be  enquired  of  annually  respecting  their 
compliance,  and  any,  and  every  session  refusing 
to  comply  shall  be  considered  contumacious,  and 
delinquent,  and  be  dealt  with  accordingly."* 

I  considered  it  my  duty  to  lay  a  copy  of  the  above 
minute  before  my  session,  and  to  endeavour  to  influ- 
ence them  to  comply  with  its  requisitions.  This  I 
did.  The  subject  was  taken  up,  and  considered  at 
great  length,  at  several  different  meetings.  And  in 
order  to  come  to  some  issue,  a  written  paper,  of 
which  the  following  is  a  copy,  was  introduced;  viz, 

"The  session  having  taken  into  consideration,  the 
situation  of  persons  born  within  the  pale  of  the  visi- 
ble church,  to  whom  baptism  has  been  administered: 
in  pursuance  to  the  injunctions  of  the  late  act  of 
Ebenezer  presbytery,  after  due  and  solemn  deliber- 
ation had,  have  come  to  the  following  resolution 
thereupon ;  viz.  Ptesolved,  that  the  ordinance  of 
Baptism,  which  by  the  tenets  and  practice  of  this 
church  is  administered  to  infants,  is  a  recognition  of 
#iat  membership  which  infants  born  within  the  pale 
of  the  church  have  by  their  birth;  and  that  this  ordi- 
nance is  equally  sacred  and  solemn  with  that  of  the 
Lord's  supper — that  such  baptized  infants,  or  chil- 
dren with  their  parents  compose  the  visible  church 
of  Christ,  and  are  full  members  thereof,  and  un- 
*Minutes  of  Pre$bytery. 


8  LETTER  fc 

derher  care,  with  their  right  to  the  sealing  ordi- 
nance  of  the  supper,  only  suspended  till  they  arrive 
at  the  years  of  discretion — that  under  the  inspection 
and  government  of  their  parents,  and  the  church, 
they  ought  to  be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord,  and  be  taught  to  read  and  un 
derstand  the  word  of  God ;  to  repeat  the  Catechism ; 
to  be  taught  to  pray;  to  abhor  sin — to  fear  God, 
and  to  obey  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — that  so  soon 
as  they  arrive  at  the  years  of  discretion,  if  they  be 
free  from  scandal,  are  sober  and  steady,  and  are 
possessed  of  sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  "the 
Lords's  body"  by  understanding  the  nature  and  de- 
sign of  that  ordinance,  which  represents  his  broken 
body  and  shed  blood,  they  ought,  without  other  re- 
quisitions to  be  declared  by  name  entitled  to  par- 
take of  the  Lord's  supper,  by  a  sessional  act,  and  to 
be  thus  informed,  that  it  is  their  duty  and  their 
privilege  to  approach  his  table.  And  if  they  fail, 
or  refuse  to  do  so,  they,  and  all  others,  baptized, 
who  are  scandalous  in  their  lives,  or  who  live  in  the 
neglect  of  this  ordinance,  and  fail,  or  refuse  to  pro- 
fess Christ  before  men,  and  honour  Him  at  his  table, 
are  proper  subjects  of  the  discipline  of  the  church; 
and  ought  first  to  be  admonished,  exhorted,  reprov- 
ed, and  entreated,  with  mildness  and  love,  to  desist 
from  the  error  of  their  way,  and  if  they  will  obsti- 
nately persist,  to  be  cut  off  from  the  church. 

"Resolved,  that  this  session  relying  on  the  great 
Head  of  the  church,  and  imploring  his  aid,  assis- 


LETTER  I. 

3  in  the  exer 
duty,  will  proceed,  in  future,  according  to  the  fore- 
going course,  to  treat  baptized  children,  in  this  con- 
gregation, who  are  not  in  full  communion." 

These  resolutions  passed  in  the  session,  one  nieittr 
ber  out  of  four,  dissenting.  Aware  of  the  difficulty 
of  carrying  them  out,  unless  unanimity  in  the  session 
and  an  acquiescence  of  the  congregation  could  be 
obtained :  the  following  resolution  was  adopted,  viz, 

"Whereas  the  above  resolutions  were  not  unan- 
imously adopted,  Resolved,  that  it  be  deemed  in- 
expedient, to  put  them  into  execution  immediately, 
and  that  the  subject  be  taken  up  by  the  Moderator 
in  a  series  of  discourses,  before  the  congregation-}' 
and  that  the  members  of  the  church  be  requested  to 
hear,  and  examine  for  themselves ;  and  finally  to  de- 
termine whether  they  will  support  the  session  in 
the  execution  of  the  aforesaid  resolutions,  or  not. 

In  compliance  with  the  above  resolution  Iproceeded 
to  the  task  assigned  me,  and  delivered  to  my  congre- 
gation a  course  of  Lectures,  on  the  Relation,  Rights^ 
Privileges,  and  Duties  of  baptized  children  and 
youth.  It  has  been  stated  by  some  that  I  was  to 
blame  for  taking  up  this  subject  unnecessarily,  to 
the  disturbance  of  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the 
church,  and  that  I  would  have  been  much  better 
employed  in  preaching  the  gospel.  You  must  judge 
of  the  correctness  of  this  charge  when  you  have  at- 
tended to  the  documents  which  I  have  now  submit- 
ted, and  to  those  which   follow,  taken  from  much 


10  LETTER  1. 

higher  authority.  "Son  of  man,  I  have  made  thee 
a  watchman  unto  the  house  of  Israel,  therefore  hear 
the  word,  at  my  mouth,  and  give  them  waramg 
from  me  &c.*  Thou  son  of  man,  shew  the  house  to 
the  house  of  Israel,  that  they  may  he  ashamed  of 
their  iniquities:  and  let  them  measure  the  pattern. 
And  if  they  be  ashamed  of  all  they  have  done,  shew 
them  the  form  of  the  house,  and  the  fashion  thereof, 
and  the  goings  out  thereof;  and  the  comings  in 
thereof,  and  all  the  forms  thereof,  and  all  the  ordi- 
nances thereof,  and  all  the  forms  thereof,  and  all 
the  laws  thereof:  and  write  it  in  their  sight,  that 
they  may  keep  the  whole  form  thereof,  and  all  the 
ordinances  thereof,  and  do  them."t 

This  house  which  Ezekiel  was  to  show  to  the 
house  of  Israel  I  have  supposed,  was  the  church  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  it  was  to  exist  in  New  Testament 
times.  If  I  am  mistaken,  still  I  think  Ezekiel's  du- 
ty is  recorded  for  our  example.  And  I  would 
wish  to  say  to  my  people,  as  Paul  said  to  the  Elders 
of  the  church  of  Ephesus.  "1  take  you  to  record 
this  day  that  I  am  free  from  the  blood  of  all  men. 
For  I  have  not  shunned  to  declare  unto  you  the 
whole  counsel  of  God."  Let  ministers  of  the  gospel 
shun,  if  they  will,  to  declare  the  counsel  of  God  re- 
specting the  relation,  rights,  privileges  and  duties 
of  those  children  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  blessed 
Trinity,  and  thus  pursue  what  they  call  the  peace, 
and  harmony  of  the  church — I  cannot  pursue  such 
*Eie*  iii.  17-21.     \Ckap.  xjiii.  10-11. 


LETTER  I.  1 1 

a  course.  I  hope  I  shall  he  granted  the  liberty  of 
feeling  my  own  responsibility  to  the  Master,  and  of 
preserving  my  own  conscience  from  the  charge  of 
"crying  peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace." 

When  you  have  compared  the  resolutions  of  the 
Paris  session,  respecting  baptized  children  with  the 
following  extracts  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  you  can  form  some  opinion 
how  far  they  are,  or  are  not  novel, 

'•The  visible  church,  which  is  also  Catholic,  or 
universal,  under  the  gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  na- 
tion, as  before,  under  the  law)  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children.* 

"All  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the  church, 
are  under  its  care,  and  subject  to  its  government 
and  discipline :  and  when  they  have  arrived  at  the 
years  of  discretion,  they  are  bound  to  perform  all 
the  duties  of  church  members."!  "Children  born 
within  the  pale  of  the  visible  church,  and  dedica- 
ted to  God  in  baptism,  are  under  the  inspection 
•and  government  of  the  church ;  and  are  to  be  taught 
to  read,  and  repeat  the  catechism,  the  apostles 
creed,  and  the  Lord's  prayer.  They  are  to  be 
taught  to  pray,  to  abhor  sin,  to  fear  God,  and  to 
obey  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  when  they  come 
to  years  of  discretion,  if  they  be  free  from  scandal, 

*Con.  of  Faith,  Chap.  xxv.  Sec.  ii.  a/50  Larger  Cate- 
chasm  Ques.  62,  and  Form  of  Gov.  Chap.  ii.  Sec.  ii. 
IBook  of  Discipline,  Chap.  i.  Sec.  6. 


12  LETTER  I. 

appear  sober  and  steady,  and  to  have  sufficient 
knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body;  they  ought 
-to  be  informed  that  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privi- 
lege to  come  to  the  Lord's  supper."* 

In  the  report  of  a  committee  appointed  by  the 
general  Assembly  in  relation  to  baptized  children, 
1811,  and  published  and  recommended  to  the  seri- 
ous consideration  of  all  the  Presbyteries  and  Mia- 
isters,  in  1812,  there  are  the  following  declarations. 

"As  the  children  of  those  who  profess  faith  in 
Christ,  and  obedience  to  his  commands,  are  mem- 
bers of  the  church  by  virtue  of  the  promise  made 
to  such  parents,  and  therefore  baptized,  so  they  are 
necessarily,  upon  every  principle  of  correct  reason- 
ing, subjects  of  discipline.!  When  admonition  has 
&iled,  and  a  suitable  time  has  elapsed,  with  a  dis- 
tinct understanding  on  the  part  of  offending  chil- 
dren of  this  issue,  the  church  must  proceed  to  ex- 
clude them  from  her  communion.  This  exclusion 
is  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  excommunica- 
tion. 

"If  at  that  age  (the  age  of  discretion)  after  hav- 
ing all  the  care  and  attention  already  prescribed  as 
necessary,  they  do  not  conform  to  all  the  institutions 
of  Jesus  Christ,  'there  is  every  reason  to  suppose 
that  they  will  commit  such  open  sins,  as  will  make 
it  evident  to  all,  that  they  deserve  to  be  thus  cut  off; 
or  if  not,  they  will  still  deserve  to  be  thus  cut  off. 

*  Directory  for  worship.  Chap,  ix.  sec,  1.   t Page  4V» 


LETTER  I.  13 

"1.  For  not  improving  their  religious  education. 

2.  Slighting  warnings  administered  by  parents 
teachers,  and  ministers. 

3.  Neglecting  to  fulfil  the  vows  which  baptism 
imposes. 

4.  For  irreligion,  breaking  the  covenant  of  their 
God."     Page  55. 

Nothing  more,  I  presume  is  necessary  to  clear 
the  session  of  which  I  am  a  member,  of  the  charge 
of  novelty.  It  is  however,  proper  to  remark,  that  I 
had  no  hand  in  drawing  up  the  Resolutions,  which 
they  adopted,  as  expressive  of  their  sentiments,  and 
the  course  they  would  pursue ;  and  I  do  not  feel 
myself  bound  to  defend  every  sentiment,  or  form  of 
expression  they  have  exhibited.  How  any,  Presby- 
terian should  consider  them  novel,  or  erroneous,  is  a 
little  marvelous. 

As  to  the  report  that  you  have  heard,  that  I  am 
disposed  to  violate,  and  set  aside  the  confession  of 
Faith,  I  would  remark, 

1.  That  from  the  documents  now  before  you,  it 
appears  my  object  to  support  and  carry  out  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  8lc.  I  know  some  who  profess  to 
venerate  that  book  very  much,  and  are  active  in  cir- 
culating the  above  report  respecting  me,  who  never 
attempted  to  put  in  practice  what  it  declares  re- 
specting baptized  children.  They  put  me  in  mind 
of  idolaters  who  are  always  professing  great  rever- 
ence for  their  idols,  and   are  ready  to   resent  the 

least  disrespect  to  them,  and  yet  have  no  real  fear, 
B 


14  LETTER  I. 

or  regard  for  them.  None  more  frequently  put  their 
feet  upon  the  confession  of  Faith,  and  show  that 
they  read  it  but  very  seldom,  than  those,  who  charge 
me  with  laying  it  aside. 

2.  So  long  as  I  am  in  the  presbyterian  church  I 
shall  hold  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  because  I  have 
read  it,  and  I  hope  in  some  measure  understand  its 
nature  and  use.  I  value  it  not  only  for  the  doctrine 
it  contains,  but  because  I  consider  it  a  charter  secu- 
ring me,  as  a  member  of  the  presbyterian  church, 
against  all  ecclesiastical  tyranny.  The  following 
declarations,  I  esteem  as  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  social  compact  in  the  presbyterian  church ; 
viz.  "All  church  power  whether  exercised  by  the 
body  in  general,  or  in  the  way  of  representation,  by 
delegated  authority,  is  only  ministerial,  and  declar- 
ative. That  is  to  say,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manners ;  that  no  church 
judicature  ought  to  pretend  to  make  laws  to  bind 
the  conscience  in  virtue  of  their  own  authority; 
and  that  all  their  decisions  should  be  founded  upon 
the  revealed  will  of  God. 

"The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  which 
it  is  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependethnot  upon 
the  testimony  of  any  man,  or  church,  but  wholly 
upon  God,  (who  is  truth  itself,)  the  author  thereof. 

"The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  (which  was  the 
native  language  of  the  people  of  God,  of  old)  and 
the  New  Testament  in  Greek  (which  at  the  time 
of  the  writing  of  it,   was  most  generally  known  to 


LETTER  I.  15 

the  nations,)  being  immediately  inspired  by  God, 
and  by  his  singular  care  and  providence  kept  pure 
in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical,  so  as  in  all 
controversies  of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to  ap- 
peal unto  them. 

"The  supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies 
of  religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of 
councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of 
men,  and  private  spirits  are  to  be  examined,  and 
in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  scripture." — 
Con.  Faith,  Chap.  i.  Any  use,  or  application,  of 
any  other  parts  of  this  book,  which  are  irreconci- 
leable  with  these  now  quoted  I  consider  inadmissi- 
ble,, and  anti-protestant.  I  do  not  think  that  I  im- 
pugn, "the  system  of  doctrine,"  which  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  contains,  and  in  adopting  it,  I  am 
bound  to,  "believe  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  to  be  the  word  of  God,  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  According 
to  this  rule  I  have  proceeded  in  endeavouring  to 
ascertain  what  are  the  relations,  rights,  previleges 
and  duties  of  baptized  children.  And  if  in  all  points 
on  these  subjects,  I  should  not  speak  the  precise  lan- 
guage, and  carry  out  the  sentiments  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  as  some  may  construe  them,  I  am  sure 
no  independent,  and  consistent  Presbyterian,  will 
try  me  by  any  other  rule,  than  "the  only  infallible 


16  LETTER  I. 

If  any  other  apology  than  what  has  now  been 
given,  be  required  for  agitating  the  cause  of  bapti- 
zed children,  it  maybe  found  in  the  following  facts. 

1.  Although  the  subjects  discussed  are  not 
classed  among  the  essentials  of  a  sinners  salvation, 
yet  they  are  among  the  essentials  for  the  welfare 
and  prosperity  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
thus  indirectly  involve  the  eternal  happiness,  or 
misery  of  immortal  beings. 

2.  The  declarations  in  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
contained  in  the  extracts  which  I  have  given,  re- 
specting Children  being  members  of  the  Church 
and  subject  to  her  government  and  discipline,  are 
little  else,  practically,  than  a  dead  letter.  Where 
is  the  Church  session  that  puts  them  in  practice? 
Many  will  grant  that  "baptized  children  are,  mem- 
bers in  part,  but  not  full  members."  They  appear 
unwilling  to  give  up  infant  baptism,  and  unite 
with  their  Baptist  brethren,  and  hence  maintain 
that  the  infants  of  beleivers  are  members;  but 
farther  than  baptism  of  what  avail  is  their  member- 
ship? How  many  of  the  Presbyterian  Clergy  can 
agree  on  the  precise  relation  in  which  the  baptized 
children  stand  to  the  Church,  and  what  are  their 
lights,  privileges  and  duties.?  Is  it  not  a  little 
strange  that  Ministers  of  the  Gospel — that  sessions, 
and  even  a  Synod,*  should  come  forward  in  the  1 9th 
century,  and  in  darkness,  and  in  difficulty,  ask, 
"what  is  to  be  done  with   a  member  of  the  Church 

*  Synod  of  Kentucky.  Assembly's  Digest.  Page  328. 


LETTER  I.  17 

-habitually  guilty  of  open  immorality,"  or,  "what 
steps  should  the  Church  take  with  baptized  youth, 
not  in  communion,  but  arrived  at  the  age  of  matu- 
rity, should  such  youth  prove  disorderly  and  contu- 
macious." 

Such  questions  remain  unanswered,  year,  after- 
year,  even  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.     From  these  facts,  one,  or  other  of 
the  following  inferences  must  be  drawn,  either,  the 
king  and  lawgiver  of  the  Church,  has  left  her  with- 
out law  on  this  important  point ;  or  the  law  is  not 
yet  understood;  or  if  understood,  there  is  an  awful 
want  of  faithfulness,  and  a  sense  of  responsibility 
among  us,  whose  duty  it  is  to  study,  explain  and  ap- 
ply the  law.     I  come  to  the   same  conclusion  from 
another  fact,  namely,  that  one  third,  and  in  many 
cases,  one  half  of  the    baptized    members  of  the 
Church,  in  the  western  country,  are  raised  to  fill  the 
ranks  of  her  enemies;  and  do  actually  disclaim  her 
jurisdiction,  mingle   with  the  world  and  go  down 
.the  broad  road  to  perdition.     A  civil  community 
that  would  raise  one  third  of  her  youth,  or  one  half, 
to  swell  the  ranks  of  a  powerful,  hostile  neighbour- 
ing community  would,  in  this  enlightened  age,  be 
considered  either  destitute  of  a  wise  and  necessary 
organization,  or  else  its  administration  must  be  ig- 
norant, corrupt,  and  unfaithful  in  the  extreme.     It 
becomes  us,  sir,  most  seriously  and  industriously  to 
examine    this  subject  and    ascertain,  if  possible, 
where  the  fault  lies.     According  to  mv  understand- 


*18  LETTER  L 

jngof  the  Scriptures,  and  the  present  state  of  the 
Church,  there  is  an  alarming  measure  of  guilt 
somewhere;  the  guilt  of  all  those  persons,  who 
have  been  recognized  as  members  of  the  church,  by- 
Baptism,  and  having  left  her  jurisdiction,  are  living 
in  the  habitual,  open,  and  scandalous  violation  of 
God's  law.  In  the  Presbyterian  Church  there  are 
vast  numbers,  who  are  guilty  of  the  same,  op 
similar  enormous  crimes,  for  which  God  said,  by  his 
prophets,  to  his  ancient  people,  "shall  not  my  soul 
be  avenged  on  such  a  nation  as  this." 

So  long  as  the  church  will  not  through  her  rulers 
cast  out,  or  discipline  those  transgressing  members 
she  must  bear  their  guilt.  Such  are  my  views,  and 
I  feel  myself  prepared  to  support  them,  not  merely 
by  the  Confession  of  Faith,  but  by  the  word  of  God. 
How  then  can  I  be  silent  on  this  subject?  How 
can  I  consider  it  a  subject  in  which  I  have  not  an 
individual  concern,  and  responsibility,  and  which 
had  better  be  left  to  slumber  until  I  am  called  to 
give  in  an  account  of  my  stewardship?  The  re- 
marks frequently  made,  that  I  wish  to  be  a  reformer^ 
ctnd  singular — that  the  proposed  reform  should  be 
effected  through  the  General  Assembly,  if  necessary 
— and  that  the  session  of  the  Paris  Church  have 
assumed  the  Legislative  powers  belonging  to  the 
highest  court  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  need  no 
serious  reply.  For  a  deliberative  body  to  originate, 
or  take  up  and  carry  out  a  reform  until  formed  by 
public  opinion,  or   the  success  of  some  one  indivi- 


LETTER!,  Ife 

dual,  would  be^a  new  thing  under  the  Sun.     Your 
large  deliberative  bodies  are  the  last  to  fall  in  with 
any  reform,  or  any  new,  benevolent  plan.     Look  at 
the  history   of   reformations — of   the    Missionary, 
Bible,  and  Tract  societies.     Look  at  the  history  of 
Sabbath  schools,  and  the  improvements  made  in  the 
management  of  education.     The  fact   is,  I  trust  . 
much  more  to  the  inevitable  effects  of  INFANT, 
AND  SABBATH  SCHOOLS,  to  evince  and  force 
upon  the  Church  the  adoption  and  practice  of  my 
principles,  than  to  any  arguments  I  can  advance,  or 
any  interference  of  ecclesiastical  bodies.     These 
schools  are  making  a  grand  experiment,  which  will 
revolutionise   the  Church,  and  bring  her  to  know 
and  practice  the  Statute  book  of  her  infinitely  wise 
Legislator.     Shall   we  as   ecclesiasticks  always   be 
content  to  march  in  the  rear,  and  leave  it  to  indivi- 
duals, and  benevolent,  voluntary  Associations,  to 
originate,  and  mature  every  good  thing  which  is  to 
bless  the  Church  and  the  world  ?     Are  these  Asso- 
ciations running  ahead  of  the  Bible?     1  believe  not. 
But  they  are  teaching  us  to  understand  the  Bible. 
Let  us  study  it,  and  take  it  for  our  guide,  and  we 
wrill  be  able  to  enlighten,  and  accelerate  the  mighty 
movements  of  those  Associations ;  and  help  to  usher 
in  that  glorious  state  of  things  when  the  Children  of 
the  Covenant  shall  no  longer  be  excluded  from  the 
Church  of  God,  or  treated  as  little  aliens,  and  infr 
dels. 

Yours  &c. 


USTtfER  2. 


Com?no?i  ground  stated — The  relation  in  which  Baptis* 
ed  Children  stand  to  the  Church — Membership — 
Scriptural  viezo  of  it. 

Dear  Sir: 

In  discussing  subjects,  on  which  there  may 
be  difference  of  opinion,  it  is  of  importance  to  ascer- 
tain, in  the  first  place,  how  far  the  parties  may 
agree.  It  appears  that  if  I  should  have  opponents 
on  the  subject  under  consideration,  I  may  look  for 
them  not  only  among  my  Baptist  but  also  my  Paedo- 
baptist  brethren.  The  latter  and  I,  it  is  presumed 
will  agree  on  the  following  general  principles. 

1.  That  the  Church  of  God  was  organized  in 
the  family  of  Abraham — that  he  and  his  infant  seed 
were  members,  in  their  successive  generations — 
that  the  charter,  or  Constitution  of  the  Church  re- 
mains unaltered  respecting  those  who  were  mem- 
bers, and  the  privileges  they  were  to  enjoy. 

2.  That  the  distinguishing  ordinances  of  the 
New  Testament  are  no  more  holy  than  the  distin- 
guishing ordinances  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  that 
Baptism  is  as  holy  as  the  Lord's  Supper. 

3.  I  hope  my  Pasdobaptist  brethren  will  con- 
cede to  me  the  following  principle  of  interpreting 
the  word  of  God ;  vizr    That  when  God  has  opco 


LETTER  II.  2i 

Legislated  on  a  subject  necessarily  requiring  his 
legislation,  and  he  never  alters,  or  repeals  the  act,  it 
stands  forever.  For  example,  I  give  the  case  under 
consideration.  The  subject  of  membership  in  the 
Church  of  God,  and  the  rights,  privileges  and  du- 
ties of  members,  are  subjects  which  necessarily  re- 
quire God's  explicit  and  particular  Legislation. — 
They  are  subjects  that  cannot  be  left  to  human 
wisdom,  or  prudence.  On  these  subjects,  or  on 
fome  of  them  God  may  have  legislated  only  once, 
and  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  there  can  no 
altering,  or  repealing  act  be  found  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament— if  so,  then  the  ancient  law  is  still  in  force, 
and  as  obligatory  as  if  enacted  over  again  by  Christ, 
or  his  Apostles.  It  is  a  case  in  which  God's  positive 
act  cannot  be  dispensed  with,  and  he  has  shown 
that  it  is  essentially  necessary  by  ingrafting  it,  into 
the  original  constitution  and  law  of  the  Church. 

I  consider  it  of  some  importance  to  have  this 
principle  of  interpretation  conceded  and  kept  in 
mind.  I  have  found  it  a  common  thing  to  evade 
direct  and  decisive  authorities  from  the  word  of 
God  by  such  replies  as  these.  "Ah!  that  is  from 
the  Old  Testament — it  belonged  to  the  ceremonial 
law — and  you  are  to  recollect  we  are  not  Jews  but 
Christians"  If  such  replies  are  always  good — al- 
ways in  point,  and  always  worthy  the  intelligent  and 
ingenuous  advocates  of  God's  TRUTH,  let  us  say  so 
at  once  and  unite  with  the  open  rejectors  of  the  Old 
Testament;  if  we  are  not  prepared  for  this,  let  us 


22  LETTER  II. 

not  throw  one  of  God's  moral,  or  judicial  statutes 
into  the  ceremonial  and  typical  law,  merely  to  foil 
an  opponent,  or  shield  ourselves  from  the  sword  of 
the  spirit.  If  membership  in  the  Church,  and  the 
law  which  points  out  who  are  members  and  who 
not,  what  are  the  privileges  of  members,  and  when, 
and  how  they  are  to  enjoy  them, be  subjects  of  cere- 
monial, or  typical  import,  let  the  fact  be  demonstra- 
ted. I  am  persuaded  that  none  of  my  Pasdopabtist 
brethren  will  seriously  undertake  the  demonstra- 
tion,* and  therefore  I  shall  consider  the  principle  of 
interpretation  plead  for,  conceded,  and  directly  ap- 
plicable to  the  question  respecting  the  Membership, 
Rights,  and  Privileges  of  baptized  Children. 

Other  principles  might  be  mentioned  as  constitu- 
ting common  ground  between  me  and  my  Paedo- 
baptist  brethren,  and  which  have  a  direct  bearing 
upon  the  subject  under  consideration.  But  as  some 
few  might  object  to  them,  they  will  be  brought  in  a6 
we  proceed  in  the  discussion. 

The  RELATION  in  which  baptized  children 
stand  to  the  Church  is  the  first  thing  to  be  consider- 
ed. This  relation  has  been  expressed  by  memberships 
and  such  children  are  declared,  "Members  of  the 
Church,"  in  the  language  which  has  been  quoted 
from  the  Book  of  Discipline.  This  language,  howe- 
ver plain,  and  easily  understood,  when  used  with 

*  To  my  astonishment  1  have  found  that  I  was  mis- 
taken, and  that  some  of  my  brethren,  attempted  the  de- 
monstration. 


LETTER  II.  23 

respect  to  a  family,  or  civil  community,  appears 
to   convey  no  difinite  idea,    as  used  among   us, 
with  regard  to  baptized  children."     They  are  mem- 
bers, but  we  are  told  they  are  not  "full  members — 
they  are  members  in  part — and  members  not  by 
their  own  act,  or  consent."     The  precise  relation, 
then,  in  wnich  they  stand  to  the  Church,  is  yet  mat- 
ter of  inquiry.     The    Scriptures   must  determine 
this  point.     Your  attention  will  be  directed  to  them 
a  few  minutes.     The  Apostle  treats  the  subject  ex- 
plicitly in  the  folio  wing  quotations.  "For  as  the  body 
is  one  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  mem. 
bers  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body,  so 
also  is  Christ.     For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, whether  we  be  bond  or  free ;  and  have  been 
all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit.*     For  as  we  have 
many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  members  have 
not  the  same  office ;  so  we  being  many  are  one  body 
in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another.! 
"And  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave 
him  to  be  the  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church, 
which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  iilleth  all 
in  all."}:    "For  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his 
flesh,  and  of  his  bones."|| 

These  declarations  of  the  Apostle  teach  us  incon- 
testably  the  following  things. 

1.     That  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  com- 

*1  Cor.  xii.  12,  13.     IRom.  xii.  4,  5. 
lEph.  i.  22,  23.     \\Chap.  v.  30. 


24  LETTER  II. 

pletely  organized  body;  a  body  which  we  call,  cor. 
porate  and  federal.  It  must,  according  to  the  illus- 
tration, exhibit  in  its  nature,  and  constitution,  the 
variety,  order,  unity,  and  harmony  of  the  human 
body. 

2.  The  members  of  the  Church,  the  body  of 
Christ  must  differ  in  size,  character,  and  situation, 
as  do  the  members  of  the  natural  body. 

3.  One  member,  of  the  Church  however,  large  or 
small,  is  as  much  a  member  as  any  other.  No  per- 
son can  be  partly  a  member  of  the  Church  and 
partly  not.  Every  individual  must  be  wholly  a 
member  or  not  at  all.  It  would  be  perfectly  ridi- 
culous to  say,  that  my  hand  is  partly  a  member  of 
my  body,  and  partly  not ;  or  that  my  little  finger  is 
not  so  fully  a  member  as  my  hand,  or  my  foot. 

4.  The  members  of  the  Church  have  mutual 
cares  and  sufferings,  and  all  have  duties  to  perform 
according  to  their  age,  gifts,  and  standing. 

Some  may  grant  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  in- 
deed a  complete  body  corporate,  and  federal — that 
the  members  may  differ  in  size,  gifts,  &c.  and  vet 
they  be  all  of  mature  age,  or  like  the  members  of  a 
banking,  or  manufacturing  company,  who  become 
members  by  their  own  voluntary  act  and  deed. — 
This  we  will  find  not  the  fact,  from  the  following 
illustrations  of  Church  membership. 

The  Church  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  a 
kingdom — Christ  is  the  king,  and  the  Members  are 
his^ubjects.     You  will  not  require  any  instances  as 


LETTER  II.  25 

proof  of  this*  Now  in  every  kingdom  there  are 
subjects  of  all  ages.  A  kingdom  without  infants 
would  be  a  new  thing  under  the  §un.  There  are 
generally  in  every  kingdom  natural  born  subjects, 
and  foreigners  who  have  become  subj  ects  by  adop- 
tion, or  naturalization.  And  it  is  a  principle  which 
appears  founded  on  the  nature  of  things,  and  which 
is  universally  acted  on,  that  no  one  can  be  a  subject 
of  two  distinct,  independent  kingdoms  at  the  same 
time.  And  here  you  perceive  essential  points  of 
difference  between  a  kingdom  and  a  banking  compa- 
ny, or  any  such  corporate  body.  A  man  may  pur- 
chase and  hold  stock  in  ten  or  twenty  banks,  and 
have  control  in  them  all.  And  we  may  say  that 
he  and  his  funds  are  partly  merged  in  one,  and 
partly  in  another.  But  in  a  kingdom  his  whole 
person  as  a  subject  is  merged,  and  owing  allegiance 
there,  he  can  owe  it  no  where  else.  Now  if  the 
Church  be  correctly  exhibited  by  a  kingdom,  then 
she  embraces  subjects  of  every  age—parents  and 
children  are  equally  and  wholly  subjects.  This 
the  Scriptures  enable  us  to  make  out  still  more  con- 
clusively. We  find  the  Church  called  a  city  and 
a  commonwealth,  and  her  members,  citizens— a 
house  or  family  and  her  members  children,  I  will 
call  your  attention  particularly  to  Ephesians  ii.  12, 
19.  "At  that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being 
aliens  from  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel  and  stran- 
gers from  the  Covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope 
and  without  God  in  the  world.  Now  therefore  ye 
C 


96  LETTER  II. 

are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow- 
citizens  with  the  Saints  and  of  the  household  of  God." 
The  members  of  the  Church  are  here  called  citi- 
zens, in  opposition  to  aliens,  and  foreigners ;  and  they 
are  called  members  of  the  household,  or  family  of 
God  in  opposition  to  strangers,  or  sojourners.  As  the 
Apostle  speaks  in  allusion  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
or  the  Mount  Zion,  the  city  of  the  living  God,  and 
to  citizenship  among  the  Jews,  we  must  have  re- 
course to  their  laws  on  the  subject. 

It  is  well  known  that  all  the  heathen  nations  were 
aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  were 
excluded  from  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Jerusa- 
lem. All  the  natural  born  Israelites  were  citizens 
of  the  commonwealth,  and  all  born  of  citizens  in  Je- 
rusalem were  citizens  of  that  city.  Gentiles  could 
become  citizens  by  renouncing  their  idolatry,  pro- 
fessing faith  and  allegiance  to  the  God  of  Israel,  by 
receiving  circumcision,  baptism,  and  offering  sacri- 
fice in  the  Tabernacle,  or  Temple.  These  were 
called  proselytes  of  righteousness.  There  were 
others  called  proselytes  of  the  gate,  who  professed 
the  righteousness  of  the  Jews,  but  refused  to  be 
circumcised,  and  to  conform  to  all  the  laws  of  Moses. 
These  were  permitted  to  sojourn  in  the  land,  and  to 
worship  at  the  gate  in  the  outer  court  of  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  but  they  could  not  purchase,  and  hold  landed 
estate,  nor  were  they  considered,  in  any  sense,  citi- 
zens. They  are  particularly  designated  by  the 
Apostle  as  foreigners. 


LETTER  II.  27 

These  foreigners  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  Grace  of  God,  became,  fellow-citizens  wittc 
the  Saints — that  is,  the)  v,  ere  naturalized  and  adopt- 
ed, as  members,  into  the  Church  of  God  5  and  then 
they  were  no  longer  foreigners.  They  were  not 
only  fellow-citizens  with  the  Saints,  but  they  were  also 
"of  the  household  of  Gun/'  The  allusion  is  to  those 
who  literally  were  admitted  into  the  Temple,  the 
house  of  God,  and  partook  of  all  the  privileges,  of 
that  house  The  Priests  and  Levites  were,  in  the 
strictest  sense,  the  household  of  God,  under  the  law  j 
but  all  God's  people  are  now  made  Kings  and  Priestj 
unto  God — they  dwell  in  his  house,  and  are  account- 
ed his  children.  Into  this  number  the  Ephesians 
were  adopted.  They  were  not  members  "in  part," 
and  entitled  to  some  privileges  and  debarred  from 
others.  Parents  and  children  were  equally  citi- 
zens of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  of  the  city 
of  God — they  entered  with  their  Parents  into  the 
house  of  God,  and  with  their  parents  enjoyed  the 
privileges  of  that  house.  The  children  of  the  be- 
lieving Ephesians  must  also  be  citizens,  and  enter 
with  their  parents  into  the  house,  the  Church  of 
God,  there  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges.  There  is. 
no  getting  clear  of  this,  without  charging  the  Apostle 
with  using  illustrations,  of  membership  and  privi- 
leges in  the  Church  which  are  inappropriate,  and 
calculated  to  lead  plain,  honest  people  astray. 

Various  other  metaphors,  and  comparisons,  are 
made  use  of  in  the  Scriptures  to  illustrate  the  nature 


28  LETTER  H. 

and  Constitution  of  the  Church,  and  to  define  her 
members,  with  their  privileges  and  duties.  She  is 
called  a  garden — a  vineyard — asheepfold — ajflock; 
and  in  corresponding  terms,  her  members  are  called 
plants,  trees,  vines,  sheep,  and  la?nbs.  All  .these 
illustrations  exhibit  the  Church  as  a  Societv  rezu- 
larly  organized,  composed  of  children  and  grown 
people — all  equally  members  and  entitled  to  the 
same  privileges.  If  these  things  are  not  clearly, 
and  decisively  established  by  the  preceding  illustra- 
tions, I  have  yet  to  learn  for  what  they  are  introdu- 
ced into  the  Sacred  writings?  If  there  be  no  simi- 
larity between  the  metaphors,  and  figures  used,  and 
the  Church  and  her  members,  they  are  worse  than 
useless — they  are  calculated  to  lead  us  into  error, 
and  leave  us,  "in  endless  mazes  lost."  It  appears 
from  the  views  expressed  by  some,  that  the  Church 
of  God  is  wholly  unlike  every  other  Society  upon 
earth,  and  that  when  he  instituted  her,  he  departed 
from  every  other  of  his  known  institutions.  If  this 
were  the  fact,  how  can  we  account  for  the  inces- 
sant references  in  the  Scriptures  to  those  institu- 
tions? Instead  of  showing  us  the  similarity  between 
the  Church  and  the  human  body,  a  kingdom,  city, 
Commonwealth,  &c.  the  Sacred  writers  should  have 
been  employed  in  showing  that  there  is  no  similarity 
hetweenthem.  It  is  readily  granted  that  the  Church, 
like  every  other  Society,  has  her  characteristic  pe- 
culiarities, and  in  these  she  differs  from  all  others. 
For  example,  she  is  of  Heavenly  origin — her  Ofgan 


LETTER  It.  29 

ization,  her  laws  and  ordinances  are  divine — hep 
king  and  head,  is  a  mysterious  and  glorious  person- 
age— Emanuel  God  with  us.  Iier  great  and  speci- 
fic objects,  and  the  manner  of  accomplishing  them 
are  peculiar.  But  because  she  has  her  peculiarities, 
are  we  thence  to  conclude  that  she  is  in  all  respects 
unlike  every  other  society  on  earth?  Nothing  is 
more  absurd,  and  repugnant  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scriptural  illustration. 

I  have  spent  some  time  in  examining  the  laws  re- 
specting citizens,  and  the  alien  laws,  existing 
among  the  Jews,  Greeks,  Romans,  English,  and 
Americans,  and  was  surprized  to  find  that  they  all 
agree  on  the  following  points ;  in  denying  to  Aliens 
and  foreigners  the  right  to  vote  in  public  elections — 
the  right  to  hold  any  office  under  Government — and 
the  right  to  hold  landed  property.  They  all  agree 
in  granting  these  rights  to  citizens — they  all  agree; 
in  adopting  foreigners,  with  their  children  as  citi- 
zens, upon  certain  term*,  differing  in  some  respects. 
They  all  agree  in  considering  the  children  of  citi- 
zens, whether  natural,  or  adopted,  as  subjects  be- 
fore any  oath  of  allegiance,  or  formal  consent  of  the. 
children,  when  come  to  the  years  of  maturity.  And 
all  agree  that  the  Slate  or  Government  has  certain 
rlaims  upon  all  citizens, and  can  enforce  these  claims : 
or  in  other  words,  all  citizens  owe  certain  duties  to 
the  Government,  of  which  they  are  members,  and 
which  affords  them  protection,  prior  to  their  consent, 
and  if  they  refuse  to  perform*  those  duties,  thev  fall 
C* 


30  LETTER  11. 

under  the  appropriate  penalty.  Now  as  we  have 
ascertained  the  law  among  the  Jews,  respecting 
aliens  and  citizens,  and  as  the  Apostle  shows  that 
the  same  law  regulates  membership  in  the  Church 
of  God,  we  have  gotten  something  clear,  explicit,  and 
definite  on  that  relation  in  which  baptized  children 
stand  to  the  Church.  They  are  members,  and  such 
a  thing  as  members  in  part,  was  never  heard  of  ex- 
cept among  some  modern  religionists.  Baptized 
children  are  members,  and  if  members,  they  are  en- 
titled to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Church?  and  are 
bound  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  members  accor- 
ding to  age,  gifts  and  standing. 

You  may,  however,  say,  "they  are  members  in 
minority,  and  therefore  cannot  exercise  their  rights." 
I  answer,  that  I  have  no  objection  that  the  law  of 
minors  sbould  be  applied  to  children  in  the  Church; 
but  I  shall  insist,  that  God  shall  regulate  this  matter 
in  his  own  house.  That  he  has  done  it,  and  that 
the  years  of  discretion  necessary  for  the  performance 
of  certain  duties,  and  the  enjoyment  of  certain  priv- 
ileges are  not  left  to  the  prudence  of  men,  to  de- 
termine, will  hereafter  be  shown.  This  I  would  now 
remark,  that  minors  are  under  parents,  tutors  and 
governors — that  from  infancy  they  are  bound  to  be 
obedient,  and  must  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  pa- 
ternal roof,  particularly  the  family  table.  To 
deny  them  these,  because  minors,  would  be  worse 
than  savage.  Were  the  .children  of  those  Ephe\ 
«siaus,  who  became,  of  the  household  of  God,  denied; 


LETTER  II.  31 

these  privileges?  Be  not  alarmed  sir,  I  know  you 
have  a  tender  concern  for  LITTLE  ONES.  For 
them  I  am  pleading. 

Yours,  Respectfully. 


LETTER  3% 


The  Rights  of  Children — Right  to  Baptism — to  a  good 
Religious  education — and  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 

Dear  Sir: 

In  modern  times  we  have  heard 
much  respecting  the  rights  of  men,  but  we  have 
jheard  little  of  the  rights  of  God,  and  the  rights  of 
the  children  born  under  the  Constitution  of  hi* 
Church.  That  the  latter  have  rights  as  well  as  the 
former,  none  can  deny.  We  have  ascertained  that 
children,  born  of  believing  parents,  are  members  of 
the  Church,  and  entitled,  to  all  the  privileges  of 
members.  I  need  but  barely  state,  that  they  have 
a  right  to  baptism,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  their  pa- 
rents, their  natural  guardians,  to  put  them  in  pos- 
session of  baptism.  This  ordinance  has  been  called 
an  initiating  ordinance.  It  is  so,  visibly,  and  formaL 
ly.  But  every  adult  presented  for  baptism,  is  sup- 
posed to  be  received  previously,  as  a  member  of  the 
Church;  an^ baptism  is  therefore,  an  open  recognn, 


ie-  LETTER  lit 

(ion  of  membership,  and  the  vfeible  seal  of  God's, 
visible  covenant  put  upon  the  subject  already  ac- 
knowledged in  private.  It  thus  becomes  a  distin- 
guishing^ and  a  significant  ordinance.  Water  in  this, 
ordinance  is  significant  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  sanc^ 
tiner  of  God's  people.  Here  we  remark  that  it  is 
an  holy  ordinance.  It  is  the  ordinance  of  a  holy 
God,  and  is  significant  of  the  Holy  Spifit,  and  dis- 
tinguishes God's  holy  people  from  the  unholy 
world.  But  its  holiness  is  of  an  arbitrary,  or  con- 
stitutional kind.  The  water  is  not  made  intrinsical- 
ly more  holy  than  other  water.  It  becomes  ecclesi- 
astically holy  and  is  applied  to  infants,  not  because 
intrinsically  holy,  or  born  again  of  the  Spirit,  but  be- 
cause ecclesiastically  holy.  Hence  there  is  no  pro* 
fanation  of  the  ordinance  when  applied  to  them  as 
the  members  of  the  Church.  But  if  they  were  not 
members,  and  therefore  not  ecclesiastica.lv  holy,  it 
would  be  a  profanation  of  baptism,  which  is  thus 
holy,  to  apply  it  to  them. 

But  it  may  be  said,  as  baptism  is  a  significant  or- 
dinance, it  implies  that  all  who  with  propriety  par- 
take of  it,  should  have  understanding  sufficient  to 
perceive  the  nature  of  the  things  signified;  and  m 
infants  have  not  this  understanding,  they  are  noi 
entitled  to  it.  To  which,  we  Peedobaptists  reply. 
God  alone  must  determine  this  matter:  and  he  has 
determined  that  the  children  of  members  of  his 
Church  are  ecclesiastically  holy,  and  have  a  righi 
to.  be  recognized  aj  sneh^.bv  the  sealing  and  distin- 


LETTER  III.  3a 

flushing  ordinances,  which  he  has  instituted,  whate- 
ver they  may  be.  We  also  say,  that  Baptism  is  not 
merely  a  significant  ordinance,  but  a  sealing  and 
distinguishing  ordinance,  and  as  such  is  of  use  to  in- 
fants, and  is  applied  to  them  with  the  same  propri- 
ety that  it  is  applied  to  grown  persons.  Sealed,  and 
distinguished  by  it  in  infancy,  they  enjoy  an  impor- 
tant privilege,  and  when  they  advance  to  years  of 
understanding, they  can  improve  it  as  a  significant 
ordinance.  It  is  thus,  sir,  that  we  defend  infant  bap- 
tism against  our  Baptist  brethren.  And  I  presume 
that  you  agree  with  me,  in  admitting,  that  the  chil- 
dren of  Church  members  have  a  right,  a  divine 
right  to  baptism,  and  that  parents  are  highly  crim- 
inal in  withholding  baptism  from  them,  when  not 
providentially  hindered. 

The  second  right  that  children  have,  who  are 
born  of  members  of  the  Church,  is,  the  right  to  the 
LORD'S  EDUCATION.  This  proposition  you 
will  find  at  once  illustrated  and  supported,  by  refer- 
ring to  the  following  passages  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. Deut.  iv.  8-10.  vi.  1,9,  20,  25.  xi.  18-21. 
xxxi.  10-13.  Joshua,  xxiv.  15.  i.  Sam.  iii.  12-14. 
Psalm,  lxxviii,  1-8.  Prov.  iv.  1-13.  viii.  32-36,  xiii. 
24,  xix.  18,  xxii.  15,  xxiii.  13,  xxix.  17.  Eph.  vi.  1 
-4.    Col.  iii.  20-21.     1  Tim.  iii.  4,  5,  12,  v.  10-14. 

On  these  declarations  of  God,  I  shall  at  present, 
make  only  the  following  general  remarks. 

1.  The  book,  from  which  a  good  religious  edu- 
cation is  to  be  given  to  the  children  of  the  Church, 
is  the  BibK 


34  LETTER  III. 

2.  This  education,  as  there  delineated,  consists 
in  administering  the  Lord's  instruction,  and  the 
Lc;u's  government  and  discipline.  By  discipline  I 
understand,  r.ot  merely  the  admonitions,  checks  and 
censures  which  will  he  found  presented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  the  proper  exercise  and  training  of  all  the 
powers  of  the  soul.  Does  this  education  of  the 
Lord  abound  in  our  Church? 

3.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  containing  the  Lord's 
education,  are  deposited  by  him,  in  his  Church. as  a 
legacy  for  her  children;  and  her  officers,  and  those 
intrusted  with  these  children  are  bound  to  put  them 
in  possession  of  it. 

4.  When  this  education  is  faithfully,  and  pru- 
dently given,  relying  on  God  for  his  promised  bles- 
sing, the  general  consequence  is,  that  these  chil- 
dren grow  up  in  the  knowledge,  love  and  obedience 
of  the  Lord;  and  are  prepared  for  the  performance 
of  all  incumbent  duties  and  the  due  improvement  of 
all  rights  and  privileges.  One  main  object  of  all 
education,  as  it  respects  the  present  life,  is,  to  pre- 
pare for  action,  and  the  exercise  of  rights  and  priv- 
ileges; and  need  I  prove  that  this  is  one  main 
object  of  the  Lord's  education?  Before  any  say, 
that  it  is  an  insufficient  mean  for  this  purpose,  and 
that  it  may  be  given,  and  yet  the  subject  remain 
unqualified  for  the  enjoyment  of  all  privileges  in  the 
Church  and  the  performance  of  all  incumbent  du- 
ties, let  the  full  and  fair  experiment  be  produced. 
I  am  aware  that  many  instances  are  produced^  as 


LETTER  III.  3*5 

proof  that  the  "Lord's  nurture  and  admonition''  have 
been  given  in  vain,  and  worse  than  in  vain,  inasmuch 
as  the  subjects  often  become  more  vicious  than 
others,  I,  however,  have  never  yet  been  satisfied 
that  such  is  the  fact.  And  in  every  instance  that 
has  come  uuder  my  observation,  of  the  children  of 
religious  parents  turning  out  worse  than  the  children 
of  unbelievers,  I  have  found  that  the  Lord's  nurture 
and  admonition  had  not  been  given.  I  know,  and 
acknowledge  the  innate  depravity  of  human  nature, 
and  that  children  left  to  themselves,  will  remain 
destitute  of  the  scriptural  fruits  of  righteousness  j 
and  I  would  not  say,  that  every  one  receiving  the 
Lord's  education  must  necessarily  become  a  new 
creature,  and  go  to  Heaven ;  but  I  believe  that  his 
education  as  generally  produces  these  happy  effects, 
as  the  prudent,  faithful  and  persevering  labours  of 
the  husbandman  produce  a  plentiful  harvest.  After 
he  has  done  all,  the  showers  of  blessing  must  de- 
cend  from  the  God  of  Heaven,  or  his  labour  is  in 
vain;  so  is  it  with  children.  But  may  not  the  far- 
mer expect  these  showers,  and  is  it  not  in  the  hope 
of  these  showers,  that  he  fences,  ploughs  and  sows? 
And  is  not  his  hope  generally  realized?  Now,  Sir, 
the  many  suitable  allusions  to  the  husbandman,  in 
elucidating  the  Church  of  God  and  the  effects  of  his 
ordinances ;  and  likewise  matters  of  fact,  show  that 
the  Lord's  nurture  and  admonition  properly  given 
by  parents  and  chjurch  officers,  will  have  as  certain 
and  as  general  an  effect  in  changing  the  hearts,  an,4 


36  LETTER  III. 

saving  the  souls  of  the  children  committed  to  then 
care.  There  are  some  soils  so  hard  and  barren  that 
they  will  produce  nothing,  except  thistles,  briars, 
and  thorns,  or  they  are  so  miry  that  all  cultiva- 
tion is  impracticable;  but  such  bear  a  very  small 
proportion  to  the  land  that  can  be  cultivated  and 
rendered  productive.  And  in  this,  the  comparison 
is  applicable  to  the  children  of  the  Church.  And 
when  it  so  happens  that  any  of  them,  after  many 
years  of  assiduous  attention,  and  careful  religious 
cultivation,  according  to  the  word  of  God,  produce 
none  of  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  but  are  mere 
cumberers  of  the  ground,  or  yield  briars  and  thorns, 
the  pernicious  products  of  sin,  we  are  told  what  is 
to  be  their  doom,  they  are  to  be  cut  dozvn — they  are  to 
be  rejected — they  are  nigh  unto  cursing,  whose  end  is  to 
be  burned.*  I  shall  in  another  letter  attempt  to 
shew  more  fully,  the  grounds  of  encouragement 
which  are  afforded  for  the  religious  cultivation  of  lit- 
tle children.  What  is  now  advanced  may  prove 
that  the  children  of  the  Church  have  a  right  from 
God,  their  Heavenly  Father,  to  the  Lord's  educa- 
tion; and  that  this  education  is  supposed  to  qualify 
for  the  discharge  of  all  incumbent  duties,  and  the 
full  enjoyment  of  all  privileges,  at  the  age  of  matu- 
rity. If  these  ends  be  not  intended  by  the  Lord, 
in  prescribing  his  education,  I  would  wish  to  be  in- 
formed what  purposes  he  had  in  view. 

*Luke,  xiii.  6-9<         Heb.  vi.  7,  8. 


LETTER  in.  37 

The  third  right  which  children  have,  that  are 
born,  or  recognized  as  members  of  the  Church,  is, 
the  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  at  once  their 
right,  privilege  and  duty  to  partake  of  this  ordi- 
nance. This  follows  from  the  fact  of  their  being 
members,  and  from  their  participation  of  baptism 
and  the  "  Lord's  nurture  and  admonition."  They 
have  been  born  in  the  house  of  the  Lord — they  have 
been  recognized  as  members  of  his  family — they 
have  received  his  education,  and  have  arrived  at 
the  age  when  they  are  expected  to  act  for  him,  the 
part  of  discreet,  grateful  and  obedient  sons  and 
daughters.  They  may  say,  we  are  willing  to  relin- 
quish our  right  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  forego  our 
privilege  of  participating;  but  can  they  clear  them- 
selves of  the  obligation  of  duty,  to  honour  and  obey 
their  Lord  and  Saviour  in  his  dying  command? 
They  have  arrived  at  that  point,  when  the  question 
is,  will  you  obey,  or  will  you  rebel — will  you  freely 
espouse  me,  and  my  cause,  or  will  you  go  off,  and 
j  oin  my  enemies  ?     Will  you  become  apostates  ? 

But  suppose  the  children  of  baptism  should  come 
forward  and  say,  we  know  that  we  are  members  of 
the  church,  and  that  we  have  now  arrived  at  that 
age  when  it  is  our  privilege  and  duty  to  celebrate 
the  dying  love  of  the  Saviour,  at  his  own  table,  and 
we  aje  now  about  to  do  it,  what  ought  the  officers  of 
the  church  to  do  ?  I  know  well  that  various  answers 
may  be  given,  and  have  been  given  to  this  question ; 
and  it  will  take  some  time  to  clear  it  of  all  the  dif& 
D 


38  LETTER  III. 

culty  under  which,  it  at  present  labours.     It  brings 
me  to  the  ground  of  defence,  which  I  would  take  in 
behalf  of  the  Paris  session,  and  of  the  documents  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  respecting  the  privilege 
and  duty    of  baptized   children  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.    I  shall,  hereafter,  endeavour  to  put 
in  a  more  satisfactory  defence,  but  it  may  suffice  now 
to  state,  that  the  Paris  session  believed  that  baptiz- 
ed children  are  members  of  the  church  and  that 
they  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  education ;  and  that 
when  it  is  given,  these  children  would  be  prepared 
to  go  to  his  table.     For  they  say,  that  "baptized 
children   are  members  of  the  church,  and  should 
be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord — that  they  should  be  taught  to  read  and  un- 
derstand God's  word,  to  abhor  sin,  to  pray,  to  fear 
God,  and  obey  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."     They  sup- 
posed that  when  a  child  of  baptism  was  taught  all 
these  things  for  twelve  or  fourteen  years,  he  must 
have  made  some  progress ;  and  either  be  a  fit  subject 
for  the  Lord's  table  or  for  the  kingdom  of  Satan.  Now 
if  in  the  end  of  the  special  educating  years,  whatev- 
er age  maybe  fixed  on,  the  subject  of  education  has 
learned  to  read  and  understand  God's  word,  has 
learned  to  abhor  sin,  to  pray,  to  fear  God,  and  obey 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  I  wish  to  know  what  other 
requisitions  are  necessary  for  his  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.     But  if  he  has  received  the  Lord's 
education  in   vain,  and  does  not  pray,  abhor  sin, 
fear  God  and  obey  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what  is  to 


LETTER  III.  39 

be  done  with  him?     The  Paris  ses  sion*  and  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  say,  he  is  a  tit  subject  of  discipline. — 
That  is,  admonition,  exhortation,  reproof  and  rebuke 
are  to  be  administered  with  meekness  and  tender- 
ness, and   if  after  ail  these  means  of  salvation  are 
used  for  some  time,  (it  is   not    said  how   long,)  and 
there   should  be  an  obstinate  continuance  in   the 
course  of  disobedience,  then,  the  lait  ordinance  and 
mean  of  salvation  is  to  be  resorted  to,  that  is,  cutting 
off  or  what   is  the  same,  ex-communication.     Now 
sir,  what  other  course  do  the  scriptures,  and  com- 
mon sense  point  out?     Would  you,  after  the  process 
has  commenced  with  the  culprit,  and  before  it  has 
produced  repentance,  stop  short,  and  say,  mat  ex- 
communication is  so    abhorent,  and  disgraceful  a 
mean  of  salvation,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  applied? 
Better  let  the  disobedient,  the  hardened  and  refrac- 
tory, lie  undisturbed  in  the  bosom  of  the   church, 
and  show  with  impunity  his  contempt  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,   on  all  future  sacramental  occasions!     Why, 
sir,  such  a  course  is  nothing  short  of  treason  to  the 
Saviour — cruelty  to  the  soul  of  the  unhappy  sinner, 
and  strong  evidence   of  an  unholy  heart.     Many,  I 
know,  would  shudder  at  seeing  the  subject  of  disci- 
pline,  approaching  the  holy  sacrament,  without  re- 
pentance and  faith,  but.  they  can  nevertheless  retain 
him  in  the  holy  church  of  God.     This  must  arise, 
from  very  erroneous  views,  or   a  very  great  igno- 
rance of  God's  church,  and  ordinances.     We  have 
already  ascertained  that  the  right  to  all  ordinances, 


40  LETTER]  if  t 

and  privileges  arjses  from  the  fact  oi  membership*, 
and  if  a  person  is  not  too  unholy  to  be  a  member  of 
the  church,  he  is  not  too  unholy  for  the  participa- 
tion of  all  her  ordinances:  and  if  too  unholy  for  this 
participation,  he  is  too  unholy  for  being  a  member. 
The  sin.  therefore,  of  permitting  a  person  to  con- 
tinue in  the  church  who  remains  too  unholy,  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  after  all  due  means 
have  been  used  for  his  sanctiheation,  for  a  suffi- 
cient length  of  time,  except  the  last  mean,  which  is 
cutting  off,  is  attended  with  as  much  guilt,  as  the  sin 
of  admitting  him  to  all  holy  ordinances.  I  hope  that 
in  due  time  I  shall  be  able  to  show  tha.t  the  ques- 
tion of  admitting,  or  not  admitting  baptized  youth 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  when  they  have  arrived  aka 
suitable  age,  is  a  question  whether  they  shall  be,  or 
not  be,  mem-bers  of  the  church.  As  members  they 
have  the  right,  and  the  privilege  of  partaking,  and 
it  is  their  duty  to  partake.  If  they  be  debarred, 
process  must  be  entered,  and  reason  shown  that 
they  have  lost  their  right  and  privilege,  by  forfeiting 
their  membership.  To  debar  them  without  con- 
victing them  of  crime  which  is  a  forfeiture  of  mem- 
bership, would  be  grossly  inconsistent,  and  outra- 
geously tyrannical.  You  may  say  that  granting 
these  remarks  to  be  correct,  they  do  not  remove, 
but  increase  the  difficulty;  for  they  reduce  to  this 
dilemma,  either  to  admit  to  the  Lord's  Sapper  the 
unregenerate  members  of  the  church,  or  else  insti- 
tute process  against  them,  and  ex-communicate 
them  for  their  unregencracy.     And  whoever  heard 


LETTER  III.  41 

of  a  church  court  entering  a  process  against  a  man 
for  the  sin  and  scandal  of  being  unregenerate . 
Should  any  commence  so  novel  a  process,  the  accus- 
ed might  put  his  prosecutors  upon  the  proof  of  the 
charges  and  plead  that  they  could  with  no  propriety 
compel  him  to  testify  against  himself.  But  were 
he  to  acknowledge  the  charges  he  might  ask  why 
he  was  ever  recognised  as  a  member  of  the  church, 
he  being  unregenerate;  and  if  a  member,  publicb 
recognized  without  regeneration,  why  he  was  now 
arraigned,  and  made  to  endure  the  pains,  and  pen- 
alties of  a  criminal,  when  no  change  for  the  worse 
could  be  alledged  against  him?  These  queries, 
my  dear  sir,  bring  us  to  what  may  be  termed,  the 
stopping  point.  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  Synods  and 
the  general  assembly,  it  seems,  have  been  unable 
to  remove,  or  get  over  this  formidable  difficulty. 
Has  God  or  man  formed  this  difficulty?  Has  it  ori- 
ginated in  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  church 
of  Jesus  Christ?  This  cannot  be  supposed  for  a 
moment.  If  we  go  to  Moses  and  the  Prophets — 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  this  difficulty  will  vanish, 
or  we  will  see  that  it  is  entirely  of  man's  creation. 
When  he  attempts  to  legislate  for  God,  or  repeal 
the  laws  of  infinite  wisdom,  it  is  not  strange  if  he 
should  be  involved  in  serious  difficulties.  I  must 
now  leave  the  Paris  session,  and  all  others  to  carry 
out  the  Confession  of  Faith,  or  boggle,  and  fail  in 
the  attempt  as  they  may;  and  endeavor,  in  my  own 
humble  way  to  vindicate  the  ways  of  God  to  man, 
with  respect  to  baptized  children.  Yours,  &:c. 
D* 


l»ET^ER  4s 


A  more  extensive  view  of  the  subject — Minority,  and  its 
different  classes — General  principle  of  unity  between 
Parents  and  Children — Reason  for  the  institution  of 
4he  Passover — Jts  uses — That  little  children  partook 
&f  improved. 

Dear  Sir: 

"When  I  undertook  the  task  assigned 
me  by  the  Paris  session  respecting  baptized  chil- 
dren, I  cherished  the  idea  that  I  understood  the 
subject.  Upon  a  re-examination  I  found  that  my 
knowledge  had  been  of  the  second-hand  and  com- 
mon place  kind,  and  was  far  from  being  perfect. 
Serious  difficulties  lay  in  the  way  of  carrying  into 
practice  the  principles  recognized  in  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  Book  ©f  Discipline.  The  inconsisteia- 
cy  between  our  profession  and  our  practice,  and  a 
conscientious  concern  to  know  and  perform  duty^ 
pressed  upon  many.  The  general  assembly, thou<& 
applied  to  frequently  had  furnished  no  relief.  No 
.consistent  and  practicable  course  had  been  suggested. 
I  was  compelled  to  take  a  more  extensive  view  of 
the  subject,  and  the  result  I  now  give  you. 

The  baptist  controversy  has  elicited  much  reg» 
peeling  infancy,  but  1  have  not  been  able  to  find  a 
single  essay,  or  discourse  that  treats  of  minority  i$ 


LETTER  IV.  4S* 

all  its  stages,  subsequent  to  infancy.  House-hold 
baptism  has  been  maintained  by  Pasdobaptists,  but 
when  the  members  of  a  family  shall  be  so  old  as  to 
be  precluded  from  baptism  upon  the  profession  of 
faith  by  their  parents,  has  not  yet  been  satisfactor- 
ily determined.  Difference  of  opinion  and  prac- 
tice still  prevails  on  this  point,  and  some  have  very 
serious  difficulties.  Has  God  famished  us  with  no 
instances  on  a  subject  of  :uch  practical  importance 
in  his  church?  To  what  age  the  period  of  minority 
shall  extend  he  has  no  where  precisely  determined, 
in  his  word.  He,  however,  has,  by  that  law  of  na- 
ture, which  regulates  and  perfects  the  human  spe- 
cies, in  their  bodily,  and  intellectual  powers ;  and  by 
special  revelation  taught  enough  for  all  practical 
purposes.  We  know,  that  man  comes  to  maturity, 
and  enters  upon  the  exercise  of  all  his  rights,  at  ant 
earlier  period,  in  some  countries  and  climates,  than 
in  others ;  and  therefore  it  would  be  irrational  to  ex- 
pect that  the  God  of  nature,  and  the  author  of  this 
variety,  would  establish  one  standard  in  his  word, 
fixing  the  precise  age  when  the  minority  should 
end,  and  manhood  should  commence.  For  the  same 
reason  we  cannot  expect  that  the  various  periods  of 
minority,  such  as  belong  to  little  children  and  youth, 
should  be  marked  out  with  precision  by  a  positive^ 
revealed  law.  Reason  and  common  sense,  from  the 
indications  of  God  in  nature,  are  supposed  adequate 
to  fix  these  several  periods,  so  as  best  to  answer 
4be  ends  of  society.    In  tfce  scriptures  we  have  wfe 


44  LETTER  IV. 

nors  of  various  classes,  and  in  some  cases  we  have 
their  particular  ages  designated,  and  their  rights 
and  duties  exhibited.  The  following  appellations 
are  familiar  to  all  who  have  read  the  Bible.  In- 
fants, suckling?,  babes — little  children,  boys  and  girls — 
youth,  young  men,  and  women.  The  first  three  of 
these,  express,  in  our  language,  generally  the  same 
class,  that  is,  children  from  the  birth  until  weaned, 
and  able  to  make  use  of  their  limbs,  and  the  powers 
of  speech  in  some  measure.  The  term,  however, 
which  we  have  rendered  babe,  expresses  in  the  origin- 
al, more  properly,  a  little  boy,  or  lad,  both  belonging 
to  the  class  subsequent  to  infancy.  Among  the  He- 
brews, infancy  included  the  three  first  years.  Chil- 
dren were  in  many  instances  suckled  for  this  period 
of  time ;  and  so  long,  if  sickly,  their  circumcision 
and  registry  in  the  family  record,  might  be  delayed, 
but  no  longer.*  Among  the  Greeks  children  were 
suckled  until  four  years  of  age,t  and  this,  with 
them,  marked  the  period  of  infancy.  Children  in 
general  and  infants  in  particular,  were  expressed  by 
nouns  in  the  neutre  gender.     They  were  considered 

*  Evidences  on  Baptism  by  the  Editor  of  Calmets 
Diet,  of  the  Bible.     Letter  4,  p.  20.       Ubid.  p.  24. 

( This  authors  name  is  Taylor — a  man  of  profound 
learning.) 

It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  all  children  among  the 
Jews  were  suckled  until  three  years  of  age,  and  among 
the  Greeks  until  four;  but  the  extreme  to  which  many 
were  suckled,  is  put  for  the  extreme  of  infancy,  and  to 
fncly/k  and  limit  the  class  of  infants. 


LETTER  IV.  45 

as  property,  and  accountable,  as  moral  agents  sub- 
ject to  public  law.  And  we,  speaking  of  an  infant, 
use  the  neuter  pronoun,  it. 

So  long  as  infancy  continues,  the  child,  by  the 
law  of  nature,  and  its  necessary  dependence  on  the 
mother,  is  identified  with  her.  It  lies  on  her  breast, 
and  receives  its  nourishment  and  protection  there, 
and  not  separately  at  the  family  table.  The  acts, 
and  duties,  of  this  table  belong  not  to  it,  and  to  en- 
force them  would  be  irrational  and  cruel.  Infants? 
therefore,  are  precluded,  by  the  God  of  nature  from 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  table,  both  under  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  dispensations. 

Among  all  nations  infants,  at  their  birth  undergo 
a  baptism,  or  washing.  And  among  the  Athenians 
the  parents  named  them,  and  offered  sacrifice,  when 
seven  or  ten  days  old ;  and  a  few  days  after  they 
initiated  them  into  the  Eleusinian  mysteries.* 

Our  English  Dictionaries  extend  infancy  to  seven 
years.  And  in  the  language  of  English  law,  infan- 
cy extends  to  the  age  of  twenty-one.  An  heir,  with 
us,  is  termed  an  infant  heir,  until  that  period.  In 
this  sense  the  term  is  never  used  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures. 

The  next  class  of  minors  mentioned  in  the  scrip- 
tures is  composed  of  those  called  little  one**  and  lit- 
tle children.  This  appellation  in  its  primary  and 
literal  signification,  is  applied  sometimes  to  a  whole 
family  of  children  including  infants:  as  in  Genesis, 

*  Travels  of  Anacharsh,  Chap.  xxvi. 


46  LETTER  IV. 

xlvi.  5.  But  very  frequently  it  is  applied  to  ex- 
press children  from  three  to  twelve  years  of  age; 
and  often  from  three  to  somewhere  about  seven.  In 
this  latter  restriction  we  find  it  used  frequently  in 
the  New  Testament.  Such  were  the  little  ones,  that 
came  to  our  Saviour,  and  were  taken  up  in  his  arms 
and  blessed.  They  were  able  to  come,  and  yet  they 
were  brought  and  Luke  calls  them  both  infants,  and 
little  children;*  by  which  we  learn,  that  they  were 
somewhere  about  three  years  of  age. 

As  the  class  of  little  children,  and  little  ones,  inclu- 
ded children  as  old  as  twelve  years,  we  find  the  ap- 
pellations of  lad-hoys,  and  girls  used  indefinitely,  but 
refering  more  particularly  to  those  above  seven. 

As  little  ones  were  fondled  upon  the  knee  and  were 
objects  of  endearment,  the  appellation  obtained  a  se- 
condary, and  figurative  application,  to  grown  per- 
sons, addressed  in  the  familiar  and  endearing  lan- 
guage of  a  father.  In  this  sense  our  Saviour  called 
his  disciples  children,  and  in  the  original,  little  chil- 
dren. But  let  it  be  noted  that  when  the  word  is  us- 
ed in  its  literal  and  primary  signification  it  is  never 
applied  above  the  age  of  twelve,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Every  Greek  scholar  knows  that  the  two 
words,  which  we  have  translated  little  children,  lit- 
tle ones  and  young  children  vre  both  in  the  neuter 
gender.  The  reasons  have  been  suggested — chil- 
dren, thus  expressed,  are  yet  under  the  controul  of 
of  the  parents — are  considered  their  property,  and 
*xviii.   15,  16. 


LETTER  IV.  47 

have  not  arrived  at  years  sufficient  to  render  them 
amenable,  as  moral  agents,  to  public  law.  As  yet, 
they  are  under  law  to  God,  and  their  parents  or 
guardians,  but  have  not  the  liberty  of  acting  for 
themselves,  and  have  not  formed  their  moral  char- 
acter. Hence  termed,  things,  without  moral  char- 
acter. So  soon  a*  children  passed  out  of  the  class 
of  little  ones,  and  became  subjects  of  public  law 
they  were  no  more  called  by  this  name,  unless  by 
way  of  endearment. 

Little  children  among  the  Jews  were  instructed 
at  home  until  five  years  of  age — then  they  were 
sent  to  school  where  they  were  taught  to  read,  and 
understand  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  then  two 
or  three  years  were  spent  in  the  study  of  the  Jew- 
ish Institutes.  Until  thirteen,  a  son  was  called,  the 
little  son  of  the  lazv,  and  after  that  the  son  of  the  pre. 
cept.  The  meaning  of  which  is,  that  until  thirteen 
he  is  a  learner  of  the  law,  and  his  father  is  account- 
table  for  his  conduct,  and  must  answer  for  his 
crimes,  if  guilty,  but  after  that,  having  learned  the 
law,  he  is  considered  prepared  for  obedience,  and 
for  attending  to  the  divine  precepts,  and  must  an- 
swer for  his  crimes  before  the  public  tribunals.* 
Accordingly  as  a  mark  of  subjection,  all  boys  under 
thirteen  were  bound  to  have  their  heads  covered, 
after  which  girls  continued  covered,  and  boys  went 
with  their  heads  uncovered,  and  their  feet  covered.t 

*  Lewis'  Hebrew  Republic,  Book  vi.  Chap  30  &  31. 
Brown's  Antiquities  of  the  Jews.  Vol.  ii.  166,  167. 
Ubid*  and  Buxtorfs  Synagoga  Judaica.  Chap.  iii. 


48  LETTER  IV. 

Among  the  Greeks  the  children  were  not  sent  to 
school  until  five  years  of  age,  and  some  not  till  se- 
ven. From  that  till  seventeen  they  were  called 
hoys.     In  Persia  the  same  custom  prevailed.* 

The  third  class  of  minors,  as  we  find  them  noticed 
in  the  holy  scriptures,  is  called  youth.  It  was  com- 
posed of  those  from  twelve  years  of  age  to  eighteen. 
At  twelve  years  of  age  the  females  were  called 
young  women,  and  were  considered  marriageable, 
but  the  males  not  until  eighteen.  The  boys  when 
fully  twelve  years  old  were  presented  by  the  father 
before  ten  elders  or  respectable  men,  and  in  their 
presence  he  resigned  his  charge,  and  declared  him- 
self no  longer  accountable  for  the  conduct  of  his 
sons.j  From  this  period  they  were  never  designa- 
ted, in  the  Greek  language,  by  nouns  in  the  neuter 
gender,  but  were  now  considered  as  public  mora] 
characters;  and  as  such,  the  class  of  youth  are  rep- 
resented invariably  throughout  the  holy  scriptures. 
In  conformity  with  this,  our  Saviour,  when  twelve 
years  old,  was  taken  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  exercis- 
ed the  common  privilege  enjoyed  by  Jewish  youth. 
He  left  his  parents,  tarried  behind  them  at  Jerusa- 
lem in  attendance  upon  the  Jewish  doctors,  who 
may  be  considered  as  his  new  teachers.  This  clears 
him  of  any  just  charge  of  insubordination,  to  which 
some  might,  judging  from  the  custom  among  us, 

^Xenophorfs  Cyropcedia.     Book   i.     Anach.    Trd%* 
Chap.  26. 
iLezvis  and  Brown,  as  just  quoted* 


LETTER  IV.  49 

consider  him  liable.  He  wag  now  at  liberty  to  pur- 
sue his  heavenly  Father's  business,  and  was  not  ao 
countable  to  his  earthly  parents.* 

Among  the  Romans,  and  Persians  the  male  chil- 
dren were  called  boys  until  seventeen  years  of  age, 
and  this  period  corresponded  in  many  respects  to  the 
age  of  twelve  among  the  Jews.  The  Toga,  or 
manly  gown  was  put  on  among  the  Romans,  at  se- 
venteen, and  then  they  were  subject  to  military 
law,  and  could  be  called  out  in  the  service  01  their 
country.!  Among  the  Persians  they  passed  out  of 
the  class  of  boys  into  that  of  youth,  at  seventeen,  and 
the  period  of  youth  continued  till  twenty-iive.j:  A- 
mong  the  Greeks,  they  were  called  boys  until  eigh- 
teen, and  then  youth,  or  young  men  to  twenty-five. 

In  England,  "  a  male  may  take  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance at  twelve ;  at  fourteen  is  at  years  of  discretion, 
and  therefore  may  consent,  or  disagree  to  marriage — - 
may  choose  his  guardian,  and  if  his  discretion  be  ac- 
tually proved,  raay  make  his  testament  of  his  per- 
sonal estate ;  at  seventeen  may  be  an  executor,  and 
at  twenty-one  is  at  his  own  disposal.  In  criminal 
cases  an  infant  of  the  age  of  fourteen  years  may  be 
capitally  punished  for  any  capital  offence,  but  un- 
der the  age   of  seven  he  cannot.     The  period  be- 

*  Luke  ii.  42-49. 

1  Adams'  Rom,  Ant.  p.  389,450.  Sec'd.  Am:r.  Edi. 
\  Xenophon  and  Anacharsis,  as  before  quoted. 
E 


oQ  LETTER  IV. 

tween  seven  and  fourteen  is  subject  to  much  uncer- 
tainty.* 

It  is  not  necessary  for  our  present  purpose  to 
pursue  this  subject  farther.  We  have  ascertained 
that  the  light  and  law  of  nature  have  marked  out 
the  age  of  infancy,  and  of  childhood,  in  which  chil- 
dren are  wholly  under  the  centroul  of  their  parents, 
so  clearly,  that  little  variation  appears  among  the 
laws  and  customs  respecting  these  classes  of  mi- 
nors, in  different  countries,  and  nations.  We  have 
also  ascertained  that  when  childhood  ends,  and 
youth  begins,  the  personal  accountability  of  children 
to  public  law  and  officers  commence*,  and  that  pre- 
vious to  this,  they  are  only  acountable  to  God,  and 
their  parents.  The  uses  which  are  made  of  these 
facts  in  the  scriptures,  and  the  use  which  I  shall 
endeavor  to  make  of  them,  will  hereafter  appear. 
One  general  principle  which  they  exhibit,  and 
which  here  requires  particular  notice^  is,  that  God, 
by  the  constitution  and  law  of  nature,  has  establish- 
ed a  unity  between  parents  and  their  children  until 
the  latter  are  considered  able  to  act  for  themselves. 
They  are  so  identified  with  their  parents,  that  they 
cannot  be  rendered  self-dependent  and  accountable. 
The  parents  stand  before  them  as  directors^  supporters 
and  protectors.  We  know  that  this  unity,  and  iden* 
tity  may  be  violently  destroyed.  Death,  or  captiv- 
ity, or  some  such  calamity  may  separate  the  infant 
and  tittle  one  from  the  parent.  But  the  separation 
*  Blackstone's  Corn.  Book  i.  Chap.  17. 


LETTER  IV.  81 

is  against  nature.  Has  the  God  of  nature  establish- 
ed this  order  of  things  respecting  the  domestic  cir- 
cle, and  has  he  violated  it  in  any  of  his  positive  in- 
stitutions revealed  in  the  scriptures?  In  other  words, 
does  his  revealed  law  in  the  Bible,  stand  in  opposi- 
tion to  his  law,  as  found  in  his  natural  constitution? 
If  infidelity  could  have  found  an  instance  of  thi* 
kind,  when  the  diligent  search  was  made,  in  the 
last  century,  it  would  have  triumphed.  But  no 
such  instance  can  be  fouud.  God  must  always  be 
consistent  with  himself.  His  institutions  in  the  nat- 
ural world,  and  in  his  church  must  harmonize. 
Notwithstanding  this  principle  is  so  clear  and  self 
evident,  such  are  the  views  prevailing  with  respect 
to  the  relation  of  the  children  of  church  members, 
that  it  becomes  necessary  to  show,  at  some  length, 
that  God  has  not  by  his  positive  institutions  in  the 
holy  scriptures  separated  between  parents  and  chil- 
dren, and  marred  that  unity,  which  he  has  constitu- 
ted by  the  law  of  nature. 

We  who  believe  that  the  church  of  God  was  or- 
^uii^cd  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  and  that  its  char- 
ter, or  constitution  is  to  be  found,  particularly,  in 
Genesis  xvii.  find  parents,  and  their  infant  seed, 
there  indentified.  No  separation  was  made,  by  the 
visible,  distinguishing  token  of  the  constitution, 
between  parents  and  their  children.  We  hence 
argue  against  our  baptist  brethren  in  favour  of  in- 
fant baptism,  and  argue  with  no  small  force.  For 
it  becomes  them  to  show  that  God  in  the  New  Tes- 


52  LETTER  IV. 

tament  has  separated  between  parents  and  their  chil- 
dren, by  the  visible  distinguishing  rite  of  baptism, 
contrary  both  to  his  constitution  of  nature,  and  his 
constitution  with  Abraham. 

As  the  dependents  of  Ishmael,  of  Kcturah,  and 
Esau  practised  circumcision,  and  as  some  of  the 
Egyptians,  especially  the  Priests,  and  connections 
of  Joseph's  wife,  may  also  have  accepted  it,  here 
appears  to  have  arisen  the  necessity  of  another 
distinguishing  rite,  wkn  the  children  of  Abraham 
through  Isaac  and  Jacob  were  to  be  separated  from 
all  others,  and  exhibited  as  the  Lord's  peculiar  peo- 
ple. Their  redemption  from  the  yoke  of  Pharaoh, 
and  their  separation  from  +he  Egyptians,  afforded 
a  very  suitable  occasion  for  the  institution  of  this 
new,  necessary  rite.  Accordingly  the  Passover  was 
instituted.  Exo.  xii.  This  rite  is  called  a  feast 
to  the  Lord,*  that  is.  it  was  a  religious  feast.  It  is 
also  called  a  sacrifice,!  and  hence,  like  all  the  other 
sacrifices,  holy.  It  was  a  feast  upon  a  «acrifice. 
The  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  was  shed,  and  sprink- 
led, as  atoning  blood,  and  then  the  Israelite  f^astta 
upon  the  body.  Unleavened  bread  and  bitter 
herbs  were  used;  and  as  wine  was  to  be  offered 
with  all  their  sacrifices,  it  appears  to  have  been 
used  aho  in  this  ordinance  in  aftertimes;; 

The  objects,  or  uses  of  the  passover,  were  three; 
to  distinguish  God's  people  from  all  others— to  pwi 

*Exo.  xii.  14.     t  Verse  27. 
\Xurn.  xv4  and  xxviii.  LukexxiL   17,  18, 


LETTER  IV.  3S 

•mmorate  their  redemption  from  Egypt,  and  to  signi- 
fy typically  the  Lord  Jesus  as  the  true,  atoning 
sacrifice.  The  apostle  says,  "  Christ  our  passover 
is  sacrificed  for  us."* 

It  claims  our  attention  at  this  time  particularly 
as  a  distinguishing  ordinance.  And  the  question  to 
be  determined  is,  who  partook  of  it,  and  were  thus 
distinguished  as  God's  peculiar  people?  Was  it  a 
separating  line  between  parents  and  their  little  ones? 
Did  this  positive  institution  break  in  upon  the  fam- 
ily unity,  established  by  the  law  of  nature,  and 
throw  off  the  children  from  their  affectionate  par- 
ents? One  might  suppose  that  these  questions  ad- 
mit of  but  one  answer.  But  here,  strange  to  tell, 
I  am  at  issue,  not  merely  with  my  Baptist,  but 
also  with  my  Pasdobaptist  brethren.  All  that  I 
have  conversed  with  deny  that  little  children  par* 
took  of  the  passover,  according  to  its  institution  and 
observance  among. the  Israelites.  I  must  therefore 
endeavor  to  show  that  this  positive  ordinance  did 
not  violate  God's  law  of  nature,  and  that  children 
from  three  years  old  and  upwards  did  partake  of 
it  with  their  parents. 

All  the  congregation  were  to  kill  the  lamb;  and 
they  were  to  eat  it  by  families;  that  is,  each  family 
was  to  kill  and  eat  a  lamb,  and  if  one  family  was 
too  small  then  two  were  to  unite  together.  Now  it 
must  be  granted  that  there  were  many  families,  in 
Israel,  in  which   all  the  members,  except  the  par- 

*  1  Cor.  v.    7. 

E* 


5*  LETTER  IV. 

ents  were  under  twelve  years  of  age.  In  such  inr 
stances  did  the  parents  go  from  their  houses  and  leave 
their  little  ones,  there,  and  unite  with  families  where 
all  were  above  twelve  years — where  there  were  no 
little  ones  !  Verily,  this  would  have  been  so  repugnant 
to  nature,  that  it  would  have  required  a  more  expli- 
cit and  imperious  command  than  will  be  found  in 
the  twelfth  of  Exodus.  There  is  nothing  said  there, 
of  separating  families — of  leaving  houses  and  little 
children  exposed  to  the  destroying  angel,  without 
the  blood  of  sprinkling.  There  are  no  directions 
to  the  parents  to  kill,  and  eat,  with  their  grown  sons 
and  daughters,  but  to  drive  back  their  little  ones. 
All  the  members  of  the  families,  except  the  infants, 
identified  with  their  mothers,  had  usually  took  their 
stand,  or  seat  with  their  parents  around  the  family 
table.  This  table  on  the  passover  night  became 
the  table  of  the  Lord — there  was  no  provision  in 
the  house  but  the  unleavened  bread,  and  the  body 
of  the  paschal  lamb* — they  are  spread  upon  the 
Lord's  Table — the  Father  of  mercies  and  the  God 
of  all  comfort  presides — he  says  to  the  family  come 
and  eat — they  all  young  and  old  come  forward — 
and  who  now  will  make  the  separation?  Who  will 
step  forward  and  say,  the  Father,  whose  this  table 
is,  meant  by  the  family  only  the  parents  and  those 
who  have  arrived  at  mature  age — the  years  of  dis- 
cretion? Why  Sir,  we  must  look  for  such  bold,  and 
heaven  daring  expositors  somewhere  else  tjian 
*  Verse  15. 


LETTER  IV,  66 

among  the  simple  hearted  Iraelites,  or  those  unfet- 
tered by  "  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of 
men."  All  such  exposition  appears  to  be  preclu- 
ded by  the  maker  of  the  feast.  "  According  to  the 
number  of  the  souls,  every  man  according  to  his 
eating,  shall  make  your  count  for  the  lamb."  The 
number  of  souls  in  the  house  were  to  be  counted — 
but  this  in  some  instances,  would  include  infants; 
true — and  can  infants  eat  the  flesh  of  the  lamb,  and 
the  unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs?  No,  and 
therefore  some  restriction  must  be  made  with  res- 
pect to  the  number  of  souls;  and  this  restriction  is 
added,  u  every  man  according  to  his  eating" — that 
is,  according  to  his  caters.  Every  man  knew  how 
many  of  his  family  eat  at  the  family  table,  and  he 
knew  how  much  they  usually  eat  at  an  ordinary 
meal ;  and  thus  he  was  to  make  his  calculation  with 
respect  to  the  passover.  How  any  person,  from 
such  plain  definite  language,  could  take  up  the  idea 
that  little  children,  weaned  from  the  breast  and  par- 
taking of  the  family  table,  were  debarred  from  par- 
taking of  the  passover,  is  truly  marvellous. 

2.  If  little  children  did  not  partake  of  the  passo- 
ver, how  did  it  operate  as  a  distinguishing  ordinance? 
The  face  of  the  history  shows  that  it  was  intended, 
and  did  actually  separate  between  the  families  of 
the  Israelites  and  Egyptians — between  the  circum- 
cised, and  the  tincircumcised.  It  is  said  explicitly, 
that  no  stranger  should  eat  of  it.  And  in  aftertimes 
if  any  stranger  would  eat  of  it?  all  his  males  were 


3tf  LETTER  IV. 

first  to  be  circumcised.  Now  if  all  his  males  who 
eat  at  his  table  were  not  to  eat  of  the  passover, 
and  if  even  the  infant  on  the  mother's  breast,  and 
identified  with  her,  was  not  to  be  present,  why 
must  they  all  be  circumcised?  In  one  ordinance 
they  and  their  parents  are  recognizee  and  distin- 
guished as  the  Lord's  people ;  in  the  other  some  of 
them  are  recognised,  and  distinguished  as  his,  and 
the  others  are  disowned  and  put  out  with  the  un- 

:umeised!  Thus  the  passover  would  operate 
upon  the  family  of  the  stranger  coming  in  among 
God's  people,  and  thus  it  would  operate  upon  the 
families  of  Israel.  And  instead  of  having  the  line 
drr.wn  between  the  Egyptians  and  Israelites,  the 
circumcised  and  uncircumcised,  it  runs  through  the 
families  of  the  latter,  and  separates  all  the  little  ones 
from  the  parents,  and  their  elder  brothers  and  sia* 
faffSj  and  throws  them  among  the  former! 

3.  The  demand  which  God  made  by  Moses  and 
Aaron  upon  Pharaoh,  was,  u  let  my  people  go  that 
they  may  hold  a  feast  unto  me  in  the  wilderness." 
And  this  feast  is  called,  "a  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord."* 
When  Pharaoh  was  sorely  pressed  with  the  judg- 
ments of  God,  he  enquired  of  Moses  and  Aaron, 
Who  should  go  to  hold  this  feast?  They  replied, 
*  we  will  go  with  our  YOUNG,  and  with  our  old, 
with  our  sons  and  with  our  daughters,  -with  our 
flocks  and  v.ith  our  herds,  will  we  go:  for  we  must 
Lolu  a  least  unto  the  Lord.     And  he  said  i^ito  thorn* 

*  Exo.  *  1-3  andx.  9,  23- 


LETTER  TV.  57 

let  the  Lord  do  so  with  you  as  I  will  let  you  go  and 
your  little  cries"*  The  reason  why  the  flocks  and 
herds  must  go,  was  afterwards  explained — they 
were  necessary  for  sacrifice.  But  where  was  the 
necessity  of  the  little  ones  going  if  they  were  not  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  feast,  and  sacrifice?  Wheth- 
er the  passover  was  particularly  meant  by  this  feist 
or  not,  does  not  affect  my  argument.  The  passover 
was  a  feast,  and  a  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord,  or  a  fev.st 
upon  a  sacrifice,  and  therefore  required  the  same 
qualifications  in  those  who  partook  that  any  c*her 
feast  upon  a  sacrifice  did,  and  no  objection*  can  be 
produced  against  little  ones,  pp.rtakmg  of  the  passo- 
ver, that  will  not  be  equally  strong  agam*;t  their 
partaking  of  any  feast  upon  a  sacrifice  to  the  Lord* 
Pharaoh  wished,  as  a  cruel  monster,  to  violate  the 
law  of  nature  and  separate  them  from  their  par- 
ents ;  but  Moses  and  Aaron  said,  "  we  hold  a  feast 
unto  the  Lord,"  therefore  the  little  ones  must  ac- 
company us — we  cannot  appear  at  the  feast  o?  ,:ft£ 
Lord  T>Uliout  them.  He  might  have  ~f«ed  ^ith 
the  logic  of  modern  times  p-j  said>  "what  is  the 
use  of  their  attendo^-0 — ^  ^  ls  a  ^east  to  tfV3  *-^-d 
it  is  holy,  and  they  will  profane  it — If  it  is  a  sacri- 
fice, it  is  significant,  and  requires  fhe  exercise  of 
mat  are  understandings,  which  they  have  not,  and 
-fore  they  are  precluded.5" 

Will  any  one  say  that  the  little  ones  were  to  go 
to  be  mere  spectators :  and  that  when  their  parents 

*JEa».  x.   10. 


38  LETTER  IV. 

feasted  upon  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  at  his  table, 
they  were  pushed  off  to  eat  something  else  by  them- 
selves? This  is  too  grossly  absurd  to  be  serious- 
ly urged  by  any  rational  man.  The  feast  of  the 
passover  was  one  of  the  feasts  celebrated  in  the 
wilderness  ;*  and  the  law  of  its  institution  stands  thus, 
"  seven  days  shall  there  be  no  leaven  found  in  youi> 
houses:  for  whosoever  eateth  that  which  is  leaven- 
ed, even  that  SOUL  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel,  whether  he  be  a  stranger  or  born 
in  the  land.  Ye  shall  eat  nothing  leavened:  in  all 
your  habitations  shall  ye  eat  unleavened  bread"} 
Here  every  6oul  was  shut  up  to  a  participation  in 
this  feast,  or  to  cutting  off  and  starvation.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  little  children  partook  of  the  feast 
of  the  passover,  but  not  of  the  passover  itself,  or  of 
the  flesh  of  the  lamb.  This  is  a  distinction  worthy 
a  Jesuistical  casuist.  Upon  the  same  principle, 
and  with  as  good  reason,  there  may  a  distinction  be 
meuje  between  the  bread  and  the  wine  in  the  Lord's 
SnppPT;  ana  ^p  one  \ye  made  common  for  diiWim 
and  the  other  sacreo,  fOT  t^e  adult.  But  on  the 
night  that  the  passover  was  r^*  celebrated,  when 
all  the  family  that  could  walk,  and  for  want  of 
wagons,  or  carriages,  must  walk,  and  had  a  hard 
days  march  before  them,  were  drawn  up  around 
the  paschal  table,  with  their  loins  girded,  their  shoes 
on  their  (eeU  and  their  staves  in  their  hand,  and  re- 
quired to  eat  in  haste,  did  not  the  little  ones  need  thf? 
*Num.  ix.  1Exo.  xii.  19, 


LETTER  IV.  o9 

•<i)hole  supper  as  much  as  the  older  and  more  robust? 
How  could  they  be  put  off  with  the  unleavened 
bread  and  bitter  herbs?  Admit  that  a  thing  so  un- 
natural and  unfeeling  could  be  commanded,  and 
attempted,  could  it  be  carried  out?  Could  the  lit- 
tle children  be  made  to  submit  to  sucn  a  regula- 
tion? I  believe  it  would  be  utterly  impracticable 
in  any  family  with  which  I  have  been  acquainted. 
If  these  little  ones  were  to  partake  of  the  feast  of 
the  Lord,  the  feast  of  the  passover,  they  inevitably 
partook  of  the  paschal  lamb. 

4.  Inclosing  my  remarks  upon  the  proof  in  Exo. 
xii.  in  favour  of  little  children  partaking  of  the 
passover,  I  would  simply  notice  the  fact,  that  they 
were  contemplated  as  being  present  in  aftertimes4 
and  enquiring  of  their  parents  the  nature  of  the  or- 
dinance. How  soon  children  would  take  notice  of 
so  singular  and  unusual  a  meal,  and  make  enquiries 
respecting  it,  every  one  may  easily  determine. 
Children  are  very  inquisitive  and  discerning  at 
three  years  of  age.  Why  were  they  to  be  present 
and  to  fcave  the  ordinance  explained  to  them,  if  they 
were  not  to  partake?  So  far,  we  have  found  noth- 
ing in  the  positive  constitutions  of  God  that  violates 
his  law  of  nature  aad  breaks  up  the  family  unity 
which  he  has  established.  Yours,  &c. 


BETTER 


t>« 


i 
The  subject  continued — Argument  from  the   Congre- 
gation of  the  Lord — Elkanah  and  his  family — ■ 
Passover  observed  by  King  Josiah — Jewish  practice~~ 
Certain  propositions  considered  proved. 

Dear  Sir: 

The  testimony  in  favor  of  little  chil- 
dren partaking  of  the  passover  which  was  consider- 
ed in  the  last  letter  is  so  clear  and  decisive  to  my 
mind  that  some  apology  seems  necessary  for  addu- 
cing more.  The  subject  is  important,  and  it  estab« 
iished  will  have  a  decisive  bearing  on  the  rights  and 
duties  of  baptized  children.  The  evidence,  which 
to  my  mind  is  conclusive  may  not  be  so  to  the  mind 
of  another,  especially  on  a  point  where  strong  prej- 
udices and  a  favorite  system  must  be  relinquished. 
In  such  cases  I  am  aware  that  God  must  speak  once^ 
yea  twice,  yea  many  times,  before  the  mind  is  car- 
ried. It  may  not  be  unnecessary  therefore  to  con- 
sider the  additional  and  corroborating  testimony 
furnished  by  the  scriptures  and  the  Jewish  writings. 

I  find  that  an  incorrect  notion  prevails  respecting 
the  Congregation  of  L*e  Lord,  and  which  alone  in 
times  subsequent  to  its  first  institution  was  to  par- 
partake  of  the  passover.     This  congregation  did 


LETTER  V.  61 

not  include  all  the  nation  of  Israel,  as  is  generally 
supposed.     There  went  up  out  of  Egypt,  a  mixed 
multitude.*     Many  strangers,   and  uncircumcised 
attached   themselves  to   the   Israelites.     They  so- 
journed among  them — and  in  subsequent  times  we 
find  the  stranger  and  the  children  of  Belial,  and 
many  unclean  persons  belonging  to,  and  living  in 
the  nation.     These  however  did  not  belong  to  the 
Congregation  of  the  Lord — they  were  not  permitted 
even   to   enter  it.     All  ex-communicated  persons 
whether  for  a  shorter  or  longer  period  were  exclu- 
ded from  this  congregation — they  however  continu- 
ed subjects  of  the  nation,  unless  in  some  cases  when 
capitally  punished.     This  congregation  was  select- 
ed out  of  the  nation,  and   when  actually  formed 
there  was  always  a  visible  and  distinct  separation 
made.  Such  from  among  the  heathen  as  renounced 
idolatry,  professed  allegiance  to  the  God  of  Israel, 
and  were  circumcised,  became  members  of  this  con- 
gregation.!    But  the  illegitimate  Israelites,  and  the 
Ammonites  and  Moabites  could  not  enter  it  until 
the  tenth  generation,  but  the  Edomite   and  Egyp- 
tian could  enter   in  the  third.|     The  unclean  who 
were  put  out  of  this  congregation  for  a  time,  if  they 
refused  to  attend  to  the  prescribed  rites  of  cleans- 
ing, were  to  be  cut  ofT  entirely. |{ 

The   manner  of  forming   this   congregation  from 

*Exo.  xii.   33.     t£ro.  xii.  47,  49.  Mim.xv.  \b. 
%DeuL  xxiii.  2,  3.  JYeh.  xiii.  1,2,  3. 
||  Lev.  xiv.  JVum.  xix.  20. 
F 


LETTER  V. 

time  to  time  shows  that  it  did  not  include  the  Na- 
tion. The  Tabernacle  was  built  in  the  wilderness 
for  the  public,  and  special  worship  of  God.  In  it 
was  the  holy  place  where  the  sacrifices  were  offer- 
ed, and  the  most  holy,  where  was  the  ark  of  the 
covenant,  and  where  the  high  priest  alone  entered 
once  a  year,  to  make  atonement  before  God  for 
himself  and  the  Congregation.  Before  the  door  of 
the  Tabernacle  was  a  large  court,  where  the  con- 
gregation met  for  worship,  offering  their  sacrifices, 
and  partaking  of  their  holy  things.  When  they  ap- 
peared in  this  court,  they  are  said  to  present  them- 
selves before  the  Lord.  The  Tabernacle  was  pitch- 
ed far  off  without  the  camp.  The  court  before  it. 
and  all  its  apartments  were  holy.  The  stranger 
that  approached  it  was  to  be  put  to  death,*  but  the 
Congregation  of  ihe  Lord  assembled  in  the  court, 
and  a  visible  separation  from  the  camp  was  made, 
every  time  they  appeared  before  the  Lord.  The 
camp  included  the  nation,  the  court  of  the  Taberna- 
cle included  exclusively  the  Congregation  of  the. 
Lord. 

The  Temple  built  by  Solomon,  had,  like  the  Tab- 
ernacle, three  apartments,  the  most  holy  place, 
the  holy,  and  the  court  of  Israel.  In  the  second 
temple  there  were  added  two  other  courts,  called 
the  court  of  the  TVomenand  the  court  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  temple  with  all  its  courts  was  called 
the  house  of  God,  and  was  holy,  but  not  equally  so 
*Num.  i.   51  and  iii-10,  38,  and  xiii.  4-7, 


LETTER  V.  & 

in  all  its  part?.  The  court  of  the  Gentiles 
more  holy  than  Jerusalem — the  court  of  the  women, 
and  of  Israel  was  more  holy  than  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  court  pf  the  priests,  called  the  ho- 
ly place,  was  more  holy  than  the  court  of  Israel, 
and  the  inner  court,  where  was  the  ark  of  the  cov- 
enanant,  was  the  holiest  of  ail.*  All  who  properly 
composed  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  were  priv- 
ileged with  entering  the  court  of  Israel,  and  there 
presenting  themselves  before  the  Lord  and  parta- 
king of  his  ordinances,  and  uniting  in  all  the  acts 
of  worship  belonging  to  that  court.  Watchmen  and 
porters  were  placed  at  the  eastern  gate,  the  gate 
of  entrance,  to  prevent  the  stranger,  the  uncircum- 
cised,  and  unclean  from  profaning  the  house  of  God. 
It  is  thus  very  evident  that  Israel,  as  a  nation,  did 
not  compose,  or  constitute  the  Congregation  of  the 
Lord,  which  formed,  from  time  to  time,  and  often 
daily  in  the  tabernacle,  and  afterwards  in  the  tem- 
ple. 

One  thing  respecting  this  congregation,  the  court, 
where  it  assembled,  and  the  ordinances  there  en- 
joyed, is  worthy  of  particular  notice,  viz.  there  was 
no  difference  between  them  with  respect  to  holiness. 
If  a  person  was  holy  enough  to  be  a  member  of  the 
congregation,  he  was  sufficiently  holy  to  enter  the 
court  of  the  tabernacle,  and  there  appear  before 
God  in  all  ordinances  and  worship  prescribed  for 
that  court.  Actual  membership  in  the  congrega- 
ted, ix.  3.  Browns  Ant.  Jens.  vol.  i.  201,  202. 


64  LETTER  V. 

tion  ensured  a  participation,  in  the  court  of  the 
tabernacle,  of  all  its  privileges.  Hence  we  have 
a  profanation  of  God's  house  and  sanctuary  com- 
plained of  more  frequently  than  a  profanation  of 
his  ordinances.  Of  this  you  may  satisfy  yourself 
by  the  use  of  a  concordance,  and  a  reference  to  the 
texts,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page.*  The  watchmen 
and  officers  of  God's  house  were  not  left  to  consider 
any  as  sufficiently  holy  for  membership  in  the  Lord's 
congregation,  and  at  the  same  time  too  unholy  to 
enter  his  courts-  or  as  holy  enough  to  enter  his 
courts,  and  too  unholy  to  partake  of  the  holy  thing? 
there  to  be  enjoyed. 

These  statemen/s  now  made  and  the  proof  refer- 
red to  in  support  of  them,  I  shall  consider  correct 
and  valid,  not  liable  to  be  even  controverted. 

Our  enquiry  now  shall  be,  did  little  children  be- 
long to  the  congregation  of  the  Lord.,  mid  did  they  en- 
ter with  their  parents  into  the  court  of  'fie  tabernacle 
and  temple,  and  there  appear  before  him  ?  The  follow- 
ing texts  of  scripture  may  determine  this  question. 
i4  Thrice  in  the  year  shall  all  your  men  children  ap- 
pear before  the  Lord  God,  the  God  of  Israel.!  And 
Jehoshaphat  stood  in  the  congregation  of  Judah 
and  Jerusalem,  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  before  the 
new  court.  And  all  Judah  stood  before  the  Lord, 
with  their  little  ones,  their  wives  and  their  children."}. 

*Lcv.  xix,30,and  21.  xii,  23,  and  22.  ix,  15. 
Num.  i.  3, 10,  38,  and  1 8.  vii.  32,  and  1 0,  20.  2 
Chron.  xxxvi.  14.  Eze.  xxii.  26,andxxiii.  38,&  xliv. 
7.  Zeph.  iii.  4.  Zech.  xiv.  21.  Mat.  xxi.  12,  13.  Acts. 
21.   28.       ]Exa.  xxxiv.  23.      t  2.  Chron,  xx.   5,   13. 


LETTER  V.  6 

Here  little  ones,  and  i 

The  free  will  offerings  of  G  of  the 

Lord,  and  the  : 
ted  under  the  com; 

and  Levites,  touted,4'?-    .  the  great 

is  to  the  small',  .eir  genea ! 

THREE  YEARS  old  and  upward, 
one   that  ENTERETH  INTO  THE  HOUSE  of 
the  Lord.     And  to  the  genealogy  of  all  their  little 
ones,  their   wives,  and  their  sons   and  their  daugh- 
ters-through  all  the  congregation... 

!^zra  had  prayed,  and  when  he  had 
confe  •  |  ;ng,  and  casting  himself  down  before 

af  God,  (i.  e.  in  the  court  of  Israel)  there 
'led  unto  him  out  of  Israel  a  very  great  con- 
gregation of  men,  and  women  and  children.]    Blow 
the  trumpet  in  Zion,  sanctify  a  fast,  call  a  solemn 
assembly.     Gather  the  people,  sanctify  the  congre- 
gation, assemble  the  elders,  gather  the  children  and 
and  those  that  suck  the  breasts.-"!     The  little  chii- 
babes  and  sucklings,  hailed  Jesus  in  the 
le,  and  there  tg  his  praises.!!     These 

itions  are  t.o  show  tie  children 

belonged  to  the  coi  e  Lord,  a 

tbers   of  that    congregation    entered    into   the 

house  of  God,  and  .  before  him.     If 

so,  they  must  have  partook  of  the  holy  thing  - 

sacrifices  there  offered,  and  feasted  on  by  their  par- 

The  oblations  and  sacrifices  offered  in  the 

*2  Chron,  xxx'.   14-20.       \Ezfa  xii.    1. 
%  Joel  ii.   15-16.  '.  xxi.   15,  l^;. 

F* 


6<?  LETTER  V. 

house  of  God,  were  divided  into  the  most  holy, 
enten  by  the  priests — the  holy  eaten  by  the  Levites. 
and  common  people  in  the  tabernacle,  or  temple, 
and  the  less  holy,  which  were  takenhome,  and  eaten 
in  private  families.*  Accordingly  the  distribution  was 
made,  2  Chron.  31  and  made  to  the  children  of  three 
years  old  and  upward.  The  children  of  the  priests 
partook  with  their  parents — the  children  of  the  Lev- 
ites with  their  parents,  &c.  This  was  according  to  the 
law  given  by  Moses,  as  you  may  see  by  consulting, 
Lev.  vi.  16,17.  and  xxii.  5-16.  Num.  xviii.  8-32. 
Deaut.  xii.  7.  and  xiv.  24-26.  Will  any  one  say  that 
the  sacrifice  of  the  passover  is  not  particularly  men* 
tioned  in  the  feasts  and  sacrifices  of  which  the  chil- 
dren, the  little  children  partook  with  their  parents, 
and  therefore  this  proof  is  inconclusive?  I  answer, 
that  the  objection  is  without  force,  unless  it  be 
shown  that  the  passover  was  not  a  sacrifice,  or  that 
there  was  something  in  it  singular,  and  which  made 
it  improper  for  little  ones. 

Again,  the  passover  was  one  of  the  three  feasts 
at  which  all  the  males  were  to  appear  annually,  be- 
fore the  Lord.  For  what  did  they  come  up  to  Je- 
rusalem, and  how  could  they  appear  before  the 
Lord  in  this  ordinance  unless  they  partook  with 
their  parents?  Would  the  males,  who  had  arrived 
at  maturity  have  complied  with  the  requisition,  if 
they  had  merely  presented  themselves  in  the  court 
of  the  house,  and  not  eaten  of  the  Lamb  ?  But  law 
is  express  on  this  point.!     The  history  of  Elkanah. 

*  Brown? s  Ant.  Jews.  vol.   1,  340. 

Weaut.  xii.  .5-1  8.  and  xiv.  22-26. 


LETTER  V.  67 

the  father  of  Samuel,  the  prophet,  affords  something 
like  a  practical  comment  on  the  observance  of  the 
passover  among  the  Israelites.  4iHe  had  two  wives ; 
the  name  of  the  one  was  Hannah,  and  the  name  of 
the  other  Peninnah:  and  Peninnah  had  children 
but  Hannah  had  no  children.  And  this  man  went 
up  out  of  his  city  yearly  to  worship,  and  to  sacri- 
fice unto  the  Lord  of  Hosts  in  Shiloh.  And  the 
two  sons  of  Eli,  Hophni  and  Phinehas,  the  priests  of 
the  Lord  were  there.  And  when  the  time  was  fhat 
Elkanah  offered,  he  gave  to  Peninnah  his  wife,  and 
to  all  her  sons  and  daughters  portions:  but  unto 
Hannah  he  gave  a  worthy  portion."*  Again,  after 
samuel  was  born,  it  is  said,  "  the  man  Elkanah  and 
all  his  house,  (^that  is  all  his  family)  went  up  to  of- 
fer unto  the  Lord  the  yearly  sacrifice  and  his  vow."t 
And  when  Samuel  was  weaned,  that  is,  was  some- 
where about  three  years  old,  he  was  taken  up  and 
admitted  into  the  tabernacle,  there  to  stay  and  min- 
ister. 

Upon  this  part  of  the  same  history  I  make  the 
following  remarks. 

1.  There  must  have  been  little  ones  in  the  fami- 
ly of  Elkanah.  All  his  sons  and  daughters  by  Pen- 
innah could  not  have  been  grown  at  the  birth  of 
Samuel. 

2.  As  all  his  family  went  with  him  to  offer  sacri- 
fice, they  all  must  have  partook  of  it  with  him.  And 
it  is  said  explicitly  that  he  gave  them  portions,  or 
parts  of  the  offering. 

*  1  Sam,  i.  2-5,  t  Verse  21. 


bS  TTER  t 

3,  V  1  wai  ee  years  old,  he 
went  up  h  ifcfa  s  the  family  as  usual,  and  the  annual 
?jcrifice  was  offered  and  E  gave  portions,  a^ 
usual,   to  ail  his  sons  and   dai 

Samuel  included,  or  exclo 

4.  Unless  it  can  be  prove .  rhree 
annual  festivals  observed  by  the  Isr  .as  more 
holy  than  another;  and  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
passover  was  so  different  frcm  the  sacrifice  in 

i at  little  children  might  partake  of 
the  latter,  but  necessarily  be  debarred  from  the  for- 
frill  not  affect  my  argument  to  deny  that 
a  al  sacrifice  attended  on  by  Elkanah  and  all 
his  family,  was  the  passover.  I  am  constrained  to 
take  it  as  a  fact,  that  must  be  conceded,  that  if  lit- 
tle children  from  three  years  old  and  upward  par- 

:  of  the  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  in  one  of  the  three 
annual  festivals,  they  partook,  with  the  same  pro- 
priety, and  under  the  same  law,  of  the  sacrifice  in 
all  of  them.     But  why  may  we  not  understand  by 

yearly  sacrifice  of  Elkanah  each  of  the  three 
annual  festivals  instituted  by  God,  for  the  obser- 
vance of  all  Israel?  If  Elkanah  was  a  conscien- 
cious  observer  of  one,  why  not  of  all?  There  is  little 
doubt  in  my  mir.d  that  he  did  observe  all  thai  the 
children  of  Israel  then  observed ;  but  there  arc  cer- 
tain circumstances  in  the  history  of  Elkanah's  year- 
ly sacrifice  that  show  that  it  was  none  other  than 
the  sacrifice  of  the  passover.  All  the  men  chil- 
dren— all  the  males,  were  to  appear  thrice  in  the 


LETTER  V.  69 

year  before  the  Lord;  but  there  was  no  special  law 
requiring  the  attendance  of  the  females.  But  the 
law  respecting  the  passover  required  that,  "  the 
whole  assembly  of  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall 
kill  it  in  the  evening."  But  they  were  to  kill  it  by 
their  families,  a  lamb  for  a  family.*  This  included 
the  females.  And  accordingly  the  Jews  understood 
the  law  respecting  the  passover  and  the  two  other 
annual  festivals.  They  said  that  the  women  were 
bound  as  well  as  the  men  to  attend  the  passover.t 
Now  Elkanah  and  all  his  family  went  up  to  offer 
unto  the  Lord  the  yearly  sacrifice — his  two  wives 
and  his  sons  and  his  daughters;  and  even  little 
Samuel  took  his  portion  along  with  them,  when  not 
more  than  three  yeas  of  age.  It  may  be  said  that 
on  this  occasion,  only  three  bullocks  were  taken 
along  for  sacrifice,  and  no  mention  made  of  a  Lamb 
for  the  passover,  and  that  Samuel,  and  the  other 
minors  of  the  family  partook  only  of  the  sacrifices 
which  accompanied  the  passover.  This  is  the  Jesuit- 
ical distinction  already  exploded.  It  is  no  of  force ; 
for  these  sacrifices  were  eaten  in  the  courts  of  the 
Lord's  house,  but  the  body  of  the  paschal  lamb 
was  carried  home,  or  to  the  private  lodgings,  and 
eaten  there,  and  thus  was  the  less  holy  sacrifice, 
The  paschal  lamb  must  be  provided  on  the  tenth 
day  of  the  month,  and  kept  up  until  the  fourteenth; 
and  hence  when  the  passover  was  to  be  celebrated 
in  the  one  place  which  the  Lord  should  choose, 
*Exo.  xii.  3,  6.  1  Lewis'  Heb.  Rep.  Book  iv.  Chap.  3* 


7©  LETTER  Y. 

lambs  were  provided,  and  kept  in  readiness  by 
priests  and  Leviies,  and  sold  to  the  people,  as  they 
needed.*  When  the  parents  of  Samuel,  there  I 
went  up  to  observe  the  passoverat  Shiioh,  we  are 
not  to  expect  to  find  the  paschal  lamb  mentioned 
with  the  three  bullocks  for  sacrifice.  According 
to  the  law,  Samuel  should  have  been  presented  be- 
fore the  Lord  with  sacrifice  shortly  after  his  birth.t 
It  was,  however,  delayed,  because  he  was  to  be 
dedicated  entirely,  and  forever  to  the  Lord,  to 
abide  and  minister  in  his  house.  His  mother  chose 
the  passover  occasion,  to  make  the  necessary  sac- 
rifices of  redemption,  and  special  dedication.  Hence 
three  bullocks  were  taken  up  on  this  occasion. 

The  proof  and  argument  here  advanced  to  show 
that  the  annual  sacrifice  on  which  Elkanah  and  all 
his  family  attended  was  the  passover,  are  strongly 
supported  by  the  practice  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  the 
parents  of  Jesus.  It  is  said,  "  his  parents  went  to 
Jerusalem  every  year  at  the  feast  of  the  passover. 
And  when  he  was  twelve  years  old  they  went  up 
to  Jerusalem,  after  the  custom  of  the  feast."[|  Jo- 
seph might  have  attended  the  other  annual  festivals, 
by  himself,  but  his  wife  attended  with  him  at  the 
passover,  as  was  the  custom  from  the  days  of  Elka- 
nah. 

You  must  bear  with  me  whilst  I  produce  some 

*  Lewis*  Heb,  Rep.  Book  iv.  Chap.  3.  Dent  xiv. 
24-26.     \Luke\u  22-24.     ||  Luke  ii.  41,  42. 


LETTER  V.  71 

scriptural  proof  in  favor  of  little  children  partaking 
of  the  passover.  We  have  seen  from  2  Chonicles 
31,  that  the  most  holy  things,  and  the  free-will  of- 
fering and  oblations  were  distributed  to  the  males 
from  three  years  old  and  upwards — to  all  their  lit- 
tle ones,  their  wives  and  their  sons  and  their  daugh- 
ters. It  may  be  argued  that  the  distribution  was 
made  only  to  the  little  ones  of  the  priests  and  levites. 
Should  this  be  admitted  nothing  is  gained.  For  if 
the  little  ones  of  the  priests  and  levites  eat  of  the 
same  holy  things  that  the  parents  eat,  then  the  lit- 
tle ones  of  the  common  people  eat  of  the  same  ho- 
ly things  that  their  parents  did.  That  they  did 
eat  of  the  passover,  with  their  parents,  observed 
by  Josiah,  as  recorded  in  the  35th  Chapter,  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  On  this  occasion,  "  Josiah  gave 
to  the  people,  of  the  flock,  lambs  and  kids,  all  for 
the  PASSOVER  OFFERINGS,  for  all  that  were 
present  to  the  number  of  thirty  thousand,  and  three 
thousand  bullocks,  these  were  of  the  King's  sub- 
stance."* The  priests,  Levites  and  people  were 
supplied  in  like  manner  by  the  princes.  The  dis- 
tribution was  made  for  all  that  were  present — were 
no  families  present?  no  little  ones?  If  there  were, 
would  not  the  distribution  be  made  as  it  was  made 
uider  Hezekiah  a  few  years  before,  when  all  the 
little  ones,  from  three  years  old,  partook?  The 
paschal  lambs  and  kids,  as  well  as  the  other  victims, 
are,  in  this  instance,  specified.  It  is  said  that  no 
*  Verse  7. 


72  LETTER  V. 

passover,  such  as  this  kept  by  Josiah,  had  been  kept 
in  Israel  since  the  days  of  Samuel.  Did  its  singu- 
larity, and  glory  consist  in  this,  that  it  was  not  cele- 
brated by  families — that  all  little  ones  were  exclu- 
ded? 

If  the  proof  now  advanced  from  the  word  of  God 
does  not  satisfy  you  and  every  candid  man,  that  lit- 
tle children,  from  three  years  of  age,  partook  of  the 
passover,  I  shall  despair  of  producing  conviction  on 
any  subject,  by  mere  scriptural  authority. 

There  appears  no  necessity,  after  such  an  array 
of  scriptural  proof,  to  have  recourse  to  Jewish  au- 
thorities, or  Jewish  practice  in  favour  of  little  chil- 
dren partaking  of  the  passover.     It  may  however 
be  satisfactory  to  know  what  that  authority  and 
practice  were.     Josephus   says,  all  the  people  cel- 
ebrated the  passover  having  purified   themselves 
with  their  wives  and  their  children.*     Buxtorf  says, 
the  cup  of  wine  was  administered  to  everyone,  the 
younger  as  well  as  the  older,  and  even  to  infants.! 
Lewis,  in  his  Antiquities  of  the  Hebrew  republic,  thus 
writes.     "  Ordinarily  were  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren,  masters  and   servants    (if  circumcised)  en- 
tertained together,"  at  the  passover.     "There  were 
two,  or  three  cakes  of  unleavened  bread  provided, 
and  the  eating  of  this  bread  they  thought  so  abso- 
lutely necessary,  that  it  was  to  be  offered  to  infants, 
and  sick  persons;  and  if  they  were  not  able    to  eat 
it  dry,  they  had  it  soft  and  macerated  in  something  li- 
*  Ant*  xi.  iv.  8.         t  Synagoga  Judaica  Chap,  xiii. 


LETTER  V.  73 

quid,  that  so  they  might  eat  of  it,  at  the  least  to  the 
quantity  of  an  olive."* 

Those  who  were  excused  from  attending  the 
three  feasts  of  the  passover,  pentecost  and  tabernacles 
were  the  following:  the  deaf,  the  dumb,  the  foolish, 
:he  lame,  the.  unclean,  and  the  uncircumcised,  those 
that  were  very  old,  the  sick,  tender,  and  unable  to 
travel  on  foot,  and  infants  till  they  were  able  to 
walk  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  house  holding  their 
fathers  by  the  hand.j 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  children,  or  some  others 
to  enquire  into  the  nature  of  the  supper,  and  if  there 
were  none  who  enquired,  the  president  explained. 
*  *  *  *  *  |{-  genera]ly  happened  that  there  were 
children,  whom  he  kindly  addressed,  according  to 
their  capacity.  IS  very  young  he  would  say,  chil- 
dren, we  were  all  servants  like  this  maid  servant 
or  this  man  servant  that  waiteth,  and  on  this  night, 
many  years  ago,  the  Lord  redeemed  us  and  brought 
us  to  liberty.  But  to  children  of  greater  capacity, 
and  the  rest  of  the  company  he  would  particularly 
relate  the  wonders  done  in  Egypt,  &c.".{ 

The  modern  Jews  observe  the  passover  in  the 
following  manner.  "  The  matron  of  the  family 
spreads  the  table ;  sets  upon  it  two  unleavened  cakes, 

*Book  iv.  Chap.  3.  This  mas  attributing  a  super- 
stitious virtue  to  the  bread  and  wine.-^- Editor. 

ILewis.  Book  iv.  Chap.  3.  Brown's  jS.hU  Jews. 
Vol.  ii.  168.  %  Brown's  Ant.  of  the  Jews.  First 

4mer.Edi.voL  i.  p.  412. 

G 


74  LETTER  V. 

and  two  pieces  of  Lamb,  viz.  a  shoulder  boiled,  and 
a  shoulder  roasted,  to  which  she  adds  bitter  herb-, 
gCCt  *  *  *  #  The  table  being  furnished,  the  father 
of  the  family  sits  with  his  children  and  servants,  be- 
cause his  ancestors  were  once  slaves  in  Egypt* 
takes  of  the  bitter  herbs,  dips  them  in  the  mustard. 
•distributes  the  remainder  among  the  rest;  divides 
also  the  pieces  of  the  lamb,  &c."* 

The  following  extract  from  Lewis  appears  to 
hold  forth  the  idea  that  children  did-  not  partake  of 
the  passover  until  they  were  thirteen  years  of  age. 
"  During  the  time  the  boy  is  learning  the  Jive  Books. 
"he  is  called  the  son  of  the  law.  and  when  he  is  thir- 
teen 3"ears  old,  he  is  styled  the  son  of  the  precept ;  for 
now  the  youth  receives  the  passover,  and  is  purified : 
until  he  comes  to  be  a  son  of  the  precept,  the  Fath- 
er stands  chargeable  for  all  his  miscarriages,  but  at 
thirteen  years  old  the  lad  being  supposed  to  be  able 
to  discern  virtue  from  vice,  and  good  from  evil,  he 
is  bound  to  answer  for  his  own  faults."!  Does  Lew- 
is here  contradict  what  he  had  before  asserted? 
By  no  means.  Until  the  child  arrived  at  thirteen 
it  was  his  privilege  to  partake  of  the  passover,  but 
it  lay  with  his  parents  whether  he  partook  or  not. 
If  they  lived  so  far  from  Jerusalem  that  they  could 
not  take  up  their  little  ones,  they  were  excused,  and 
their  little  ones  were  not  accountable  to  the  public 
officers.     At  thirteen  they  were  accountable,  and 

*  Brown's  Ant.  of  the  Jczcs.  First  Amer.  Edi,  vol.  i, 
p,  428.  f  Book  vi,  Chap,  39, 


LETTER  V* 

bound  to  partake  of  the  passover.  Before  it  was 
their  privilege;  and  the  duty  of  the  father  to  put 
them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  privilege,  if  no  natur- 
al, or  legal,  obstacle  rendered  it  impracticable— 
but  now,  it  was  at  once  their  privilege  and  their  duty ; 
and  if  they  refused  to  enjoy  their  privilege  and  per- 
form their  duty  they  were  liable  to  be  cut  off  by 
the  judges.*  This  was  the  law  respecting  all  that 
were  accountable  to  the  rulers  for  their  conduct, 
and  would  not  partake  of  the  passover.  When  a 
man  was  unclean,  or  on  a  journey  so  that  he  was 
prevented  observing  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  first  month,  there  was  a  second  passover 
for  such  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  second  month ; 
and  he  who  was  clean  and  not  on  a  journey,  and 
would  not  keep  the  passover  was  to  be  cut  off.t  If 
unclean,  it  appears  they  had  a  month  to  attend  to 
the  duty  of  cleansing,  but  no  longer.  They  could 
not  plead,  that  the  time  was  too  short — that  they 
could  not  cleanse  themselves,  and  that  God  must  do 
it  for  them;  and  that  until  he  did  it  for  them,  ex- 
communication must  be  delayed.^ 

The  following  propositions  may  now  be  consider- 
ed as  established. 

*  Lewis  as  before  cited.     INum.  ix.  10-14. 

\Until  the  preceding  evidence  was  submitted  to  the 
Kentucky  Synod,  I  found  none  who  would  grant  that  lit- 
tle children  partook  of  the  passover,  and  some  said  if 
it  could  be  prove <i,  thuh  <  i^ht  to  the  Lorars  Supper 
would  be  established  beyond  all  refutation.  This  is  run 
apology  for  spending  $p  much  time  on  this  point, 


76  LETTER  V. 

1 .  Infancy  among  the  Jews,  and  according  to  the 
law  of  God,  natural  and  revealed,  included  three 
years  from  the  birth ;  and  that  children  of  this  pe- 
riod, were  identified  with  the  mother,  and  that  no 
provision  was  made  for  them  in  the  feasts  upon  the 
sacrifices,  offered  to  the  Lord. 

2.  When  three  years  old  there  was  provision 
made  for  them — they  partook  of  the  passover  with 
their  parents ;  and  of  the  other  holy  things,  as  their 
privilege,  until  thirteen  years  of  age  and  then  it  be- 
came their  indispensible  duty. 

3.  Those  who  were  unprepared  to  partake  of  the 
passover  according  to  the  law,  and  did  not  become 
prepared  in  a  month,  were  excommunicated. 

4.  The  religious,  and  positive  institutions  of  God 
in  the  Old  Testament,  particularly  the  passover, 
did  not  violate  the  law  of  nature  establishing  the 
family  unity,  by  which  children,  until  capable  of 
acting  for  themselves,  are  identified  with  their  par- 
ents, and  live,  and  enjoy  privileges  through  them. 

Whether  the  laws  of  God,  natural  and  revealed, 
contained  in  the  above  propositions  have  been  re- 
pealed, will  be  a  question  for  future  consideration. 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  6. 


The  Law  of   the,  Passover  riot  annulled — but  hi  jl-rc? 
with  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper — proved  from  tho 
Scriptures;  and  that  Utile    children  did  'partake  of 
this  ordinance  under  the  administration  of  the  Jpo- 
iles. 

Dear  Sir: 

The  Pasdobaptists  generally  mainuui. 
that  baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of"  circumcision, 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  m  the  room  of  the  passover/ 
They  also  contend  that  the  law  of  church  member- 
ship, by  which  infants  were  formerly  members  has 
remained  unaltered.  If  this  be  so,  a  question  arises 
which  we  must  endeavor  to  determine;  viz.  Wa< 
the  law  of  the  passover  annulled,  and  has  a  new  lav> 
been  introduced  respecting  the  Lord's  Table  by 
which  other  terms  of  admission  are  required,  and 
little  children  are  excluded,  contrary  to  the  origin- 
al  law  of  nature,  tenderly  regarded  in  the  Old  Tes 
tament?  You  must  not  think  it  strange,  and  heret- 
ical if  I  take  the  negative  of  this  question,  and  en- 
deavour to  support  it.  If  I  should  have  opponents, 
who  take  the  affirmative,  I  would  request  them,  to 

* 'This,  to  my  great   astonishment  was  denied  in  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky  at  its  last  meetings  by  two  cham** 
j>ions  for  the  faith ! 


78  LETTER  VI. 

show  explicitly  that  the  law  of  the  passover  was  re- 
pealed ;  and  that  the  privilege,  which  little  children 
enjoyed  of  partaking  of  the  passover  was  taken  from 
them  by  the  Saviour,  or  his  Apostles,  and  that  he 
debarred  them  from  the  Supper,  which  he  instituted 
in  its  place.  In  other  words  they  must  show  from 
the  New  Testament,  that  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, the  original  charter  of  the  church  was  altered ; 
and  that  new  terms  of  membership  and  of  enjoying 
distinguishing  privileges  were  introduced.  When 
they  have  done  this  and  driven  me  from  my  posi- 
tion, how  will  they  face  the  Baptists,  and  maintain 
the  membership  and  baptism  of  infants?  With  this 
hard  task,  and  in  this  awkard  situation  I  might  safe- 
ly leave  all  my  Pasdobaptist  opponents,  and  spare 
myself  the  trouble  of  any  further  argument.  But 
to  satisfy  some,  and  to  remove  the  prejudice,  which 
has  been  supported  by  the  practice  of  ages,  it  be- 
comes necessary  for  me  to  endeavor  to  prove  the 
negative — to  prove  that  the  law  of  the  passover,  is 
the  law  of  the  Lord's  supper — to  prove  that  the  lit- 
tle children  of  baptism  are  as  highly  privileged  un- 
der the  Saviour,  as  the  little  children  of  circumcis- 
ion were  under  Moses ;  and  that  as  the  latter  par- 
took of  the  passover  the  former  have  the  right  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

We  have  been  in  the  habit  of  arguing  thus  against 
our  Baptist  brethren.  "  The  membership  of  chil- 
dren, in  the  church,  under  the  Old  Testament, 
and  their  participation  of  circumcision  were  privi- 


LETTER  VI.  T9 

leges,  which  parents  held  so  dear,  and  precious, 
that  they  never  would  relinquish  them  quietly,  with? 
out  some  equivalent.     But  not  a  syllable  of  com- 
plaint can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  against 
our  Saviour,  either  by  friend  or  foe,  for  his  inter- 
fering with  the  law,  and  custom,  and  taking  away 
these  privileges.     The  obvious  inference  is,  that  he 
left  the  membership  and  privileges  of  children  as 
they  were.     Now  if  it  was  the  privilege  of  little 
children  to  partake  of  the  passover,  and  if  they  did 
partake  of  it,  as  often  as  it  was  in  the  power  of  their 
parents,  is  not  the  argument  against  the  Baptists,  as 
good  and  valid  in  my  favour,  as  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism?  Will  it  not  as  effectually  secure  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  has  come  in  the  room  of  the  passo- 
over,*  to  little  children,  as  it  will  secure  infant 
baptism,  which  has  come  in  the  room  of  circumcis- 
ion?   Jewish  parents  would    relinquish   the   one 
privilege,  without  murmuring  just  as  soon  as   the 
other ;  and  I  do  consider  this  argument  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism,  and  the  communion  of  little  children 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  strong   and  unanswerable. 
So  grevious  must  it  have  been  to  Jewish  parents,  to 
have  their  little  ones  shut  out  of  the  house  of  God, 
and  debarred  from  his  table,  where  they  had  so 
long  sat  and  feasted  together,  that  they  must  have 
been  prepared  for  it  both  by  prophecy,  and  by  John 

*As  this  has  been  denied  recently,  by  Presbyterians  of 
no  inconsiderable  standings  it  will  be  supported  with 
proof,  in  a  subsequent  letter. 


so  Letter  vi. 

the  Baptist,  or  they  never  would  have  silently  ac- 
quiesced ;  and  those  who  remained  the  envious,  and 
malignant  opposers  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  never  fail- 
ed to  lay  hold  of  every  thing  which  could  prejudice 
the  people  against  him  and  justify  their  own  con- 
duct, would  certainly  not  have  heen  silent,  when 
ihey  found  him,  contrary  to  the  law  of  nature  and 
o(  Moses — the  prejudices  and  tender  feelings  of 
parents,  and  every  thing  known  among  men,  clear- 
ing the  house  of  God  of  little  children,  and  driving 
them  away  from  the  family  table.  There  are  no 
complaints,  however,  but  entire  silence,  respecting 
this  offence  in  our  Saviour,  throughout  his  history 
by  the  Evangelists;  and  his  Apostles  stand  as  free  of 
charge,  as  he  does,  on  this  point.  This  is  strong 
presumptive  proof  that  children  occupied  the  same 
standing  under  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  and  enjoy- 
ed substantially  the  same  privileges,  which  they 
did  under  the  Abrahamic  and  Mosaic  dispensation. 
Did  prophecy  declare  so  clearly,  and  decidedly, 
that  children  should  lose  the  standing  and  privi- 
leges  which  they  enjoyed  under  Moses,  when  Mes- 
siah came;  and  did  John  the  Baptist  so  perfectly 
prepare  the  Jewish  nation  to  acquiesce  in  the  be- 
reavement, that  no  one  murmured,  or  made  any 
complaint  when  it  was  inflicted?  You  will  excuse 
me,  Sir,  for  not  attempting  to  prove  this,  and  will 
be  as  well  satisfied,  if  I  prove  the  contrary. 

First,  what  says  the  spirit  of  Prophecy?     That 
ia  Abraham,   "  all  the  FAMILIES  of  the  earth 


LETTER  VI.  81 

should  be  blessed."*  As  parents  and  children  were 
included  in  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  comman- 
ded Moses  in  the  Land  of  Moab,  so  children  are  to 
be  included  with  them  in  their  final  restoration  from 
all  nations.t  That  restoration  is  yet  future,  and 
when  restored,  their  religious  ordinances,  and  wor- 
ship will  be  christian,  not  Jewish,  and  their  children 
will  be  with  them.  The  Messiah,  among  other  things 
was  not  to  forget  the  little  ones.  "  He  shall  feed 
his  flock  like  a  shepherd;  he  shall  gather  the  lambs 
with  his  arm  and  carry  them  in  his  bosom,  for  they 
are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord  and  their 
offspring  with  them."!  "Their  children  also  shall  be 
as  aforetime  and  their  congregation  shall  be  estab- 
lished before  me,  and  I  will  punish  all  that  oppress 
them."1F  And  they  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I 
have  given  unto  Jacob  my  servant,  wherein  your 
fathers  have  dwelt;  and  they  shall  dwell  therein, 
even  they  and  their  children,  and  their  children's  chil- 
dren forever.§  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  ye 
shall  divide  it  by  lot  for  an  inheritance  unto  you, 
and  the  strangers  that  sojourn  among  you,  which 
shall  beget  children  among  you;  and  they  shall  be 
unto  you  as  born  in  the  country  among  the  chil- 
dren of  Irael."||  Behold  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the 
prophet  before  the  coming  of  the  great  and  dread- 
ful day  of  the  Lord :  and  he  shall  turn  the  heart  of 

*  Ge?i.xii.  3.  t  Dent.  xxix.  1,  11.  an<3  xxx.  1-3. 
X  ha.  xl.  1 1,  lxv.  23.  %Jer.  xxx.  20.  §£?e»  xxxvii. 
25.     II  xlvii.  23. 


m.  LETTER  VI. 

the  fathers  to  the  Children^  and  the  heart  of  the 
Children  to  their  fathers,  lest  I  come  and  will  smite 
the  earth  with  a  curse/'*  Admitting  that  the  Jew- 
ish doctors,  and  lawyers  were  bad  expositors  of  the 
law,  and  the  prophets  must  not  they,  and  every  pi- 
ous reader  of  the  above  prophecies  understand  by 
them  that  children  were  to  occupy  the  same  rela- 
tion, and  privileges  which  they  had  done  from  the 
days  of  Abraham?  Any  christian  expositor,  who 
understands  the  plain  meaning  of  words,  would  ap- 
ply the  passages  quoted  in  their  natural,  and  literal 
sense.  I  have  omitted  man}*,  that  may  with  some 
reason  be  taken  figuratively,  that  is,  children  may 
mean  new  born,  or  young  converts  to  Messiah ;  but 
in  those  produced,  this  cannot  with  any  propriety 
be  done.  Prophecy  then  did  not  prepare  the  Jews 
silently  to  suffer  their  children  to  be  cast  out  of 
their  church  standing  and  privileges,  but  cheered 
them  with  the  hope  that  the  Messiah  would  reign 
over  and  bless  them,  and  their  families. 

Did  John  the  Baptist  prepare  them  to  give  up 
their  children,  to  have  them  cast  out,  and  treated 
as  heathen?  We  are  taught  explicitly  in  the  New 
Testament  that  he  was  the  Elijah  spoken  of  by 
Malachi;  and  that  he  should  perform  what  was 
there  promised  and  foretold. t  If  he,  therefore, 
did  not  prepare  fathers  and  children,  that  ia  fami- 
lies, for  the  reception  of  the  Messiah,  he  did  not 

*  Mai.  iv.  5,  6.     See  also  Psalm,  viii.  2. 
KMat.xi.  13,14.     xvii.  l?.  )?.  Luke  i.  IT.- 


LETTER  VI.  83 

answer  the  great  purpose  for  which  he  was  born, 
and  commissioned,  as  the  messenger  of  the  Lord. 
[  might  spare  any  thing  more  as  proof,  or  argument 
that  John  did  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the 
children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  fath- 
ers, and  thus,  "  made  ready  a  people  prepared  for 
the  Lord."  But,  1  would  call  your  attention  a  few 
minutes  to  the  history  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  our 
Saviour. 

When,  "all  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,"  went  out  to  John, 
preaching,  and  baptizing  in  the  wilderness,  were 
there  no  children  included?  On  two  similar  occa- 
sions, when  our  Saviour  fed  the  multitudes  mira- 
culously, there  were  women  and  children  present 
and  partook  along  with  the  men.  If  children  were 
then,  as  they  are  now,  it  would  have  been  next  to 
impossible  to  have  kept  them  away  from  John.  And 
when  many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  came  to 
his  baptism,  and  appear  to  have  calculated  on  r 
ceiving  it  without  repentance,  upon  the  grouna 
that  they  were  the  children  of  Abraham,  did  he  in- 
form them  that  the  covenant  of  Abraham  had  come 
to  an  end — and  that  he  was  to  have  no  more  chil- 
dren— and  that  children  were  no  longer  to  inherit 
the  blessing  of  a  name  and  place  in  the  church? 
Far  from  it.  He  teaches  explicitly  that  Abraham 
was  still  to  have  children,  though  raised  from  the 
stones  lying  before  him — he  teaches  that  the  un- 
fruitful trees  were  to  be  cut  down  and  of  course 


34  LETTER  VI. 

the  fruitful  were  to  be  left  standing,  in  the  vine- 
yard, with  all  their  branches — he  teaches,  that  the 
Lord,  whose  way  he  was  preparing,  would  purge 
his  floor,  not  burn  it  up,  with  the  chaff.  It  may  be 
said  that  John  preached  repentance,  and  that  little 
children  could  not  repent,  and  therefore  they  must 
be  excluded  from  the  number  prepared  for  the  re- 
ception of  the  Messiah.  I  answer,  that  by  repen- 
tance, I  am  taught  to  understand,  a  change  of  views, 
disposition,  and  conduct,  and  particularly,  of  views, 
respecting  the  character  and  mission  of  Christ. 
Now  if  little  children  could  not  repent,  the  reason 
must  be  that  they  had  no  need  of  repentance.  They 
had  no  views  right  or  wrong  respecting  the  Messi- 
ah, and  were  naturally  incapable  of  being  convict- 
ed by  John,  or  any  other  of  cherishing  an  impro- 
per disposition,  or  conducting  contrary  to  the  law 
of  God.  This  being  so,  they  were  without  blame, 
and  of  course  were  as  fit  subjects  of  Christ's  reign, 
as  those  who  were  of  mature  age  and  repented. 
But  I  feel  disposed  to  deny  that  little  children — 
that  is,  those  between  three,  and  seven  years  of 
age,  did  not  need  repentance  in  the  days  of  John. 
The  views,  the  disposition  and  the  conduct  of  their 
parents  they  would  notice,  admire,  and  imitate. 
Education  among  the  Jews  commenced  with  the 
children  before  they  were  three  ye*ars  old.  And 
when  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  were  turned  to  their 
children,  they  would  teach  them,  and  enforce  up- 
on them  what  John  had  preached. 


LETTER  VI.  8* 

Matter  of  tact  show?  that  families,  and  families 
including  little  children  were  prepared  for  the  re- 
ception of  the  Saviour.     He  did  not  smite  the  earth 
with  a  curse.     Some  families  received  him  into 
their  houses,   and    enlisted    under   him   as    their 
Messiah.     Thus   he  had  a  people  to  reign    over, 
and  to  exercise  some  little  hospitality  towards  him* 
When  the  master  of  a  house  received  his  Apostles 
they  were  to  say  peace  to  this  house,  which  was 
certainly  peace  to  the  inhabitants,  or  to  the  whole 
family.     And  when  he  himself  visited  one  of  these 
families,  and  was  received,  as  instructed  by  John  or 
the  Apostles,  how  could  the  little  children,  be  ex- 
cluded from  his  presence,  his  friendly  notice  and 
blessing?     "VVe  are  informed  explicitly  that  on  one 
occasion/  keing  in  a  family,   Jesus  called  a  little 
rhil^  t0  mm>  -°°k  i-  UP  *n  ms  arms,  and  said,  "  who- 
mever shall  receive  this  child  in  my  name  receiv- 
ethme.*'*     If  this  little  child  had  not  been  Christ's 
and  a  subject  of  his  reign,  it  could  not  have  been 
received  in  his  name.     The  subject  under  consid- 
eratian  at  the  time  was,  membership  in  the  king- 
dom of  Jesus  Christ;  and  he  taught  his  disciples 
that  they  must  enter  as  little  children,  and  that  as 
officers  they  must  receive  little  children,  as  he  did- 
Again,  little  children  atanothertime  were  brought 
to  our  Saviour,  that  he  should  lay  his  hands  on 
them  and  pray.     Luke  calls  them  infants,  and   lit- 
tle children;!  by  which  we  are  taught  that   the> 
*Mat.  xviii.  2-5.     Mark,  ix.  33-37.  and  Luke  ix. 
.  j  3.  \L\ike  xviii.  1 5, 1 6.  See  also  Mat,  xix.  1 3-1 5 
H 


6#  LETTER  VI^ 

-were  somewhere  about  three  years  of  age.    It  ap- 
pears that  the  disciples  considered  them  unfit  sub- 
jects of  Christ's  reign,  or  Kingdom,  and  rebuked 
those  that  brought  them.     "  But  Jesus  called  them 
unto  him,  and  said  suffer  little  children  to  come  un- 
to me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  King- 
dom of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
(receives  it)  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein."     These 
children,  young  as  they  were,  could  come  to  Christ 
at  his  call — they  were  fit  subjects  of  his  reign,  and 
in  receiving  him  in  his  kingdom,  or  reign,  were  the 
models  of  instruction  to  all  grown  persons  who 
would  become  his  subjects.     I  knew  that  the  com- 
mon understanding  of  those  words  of  0-3 r  Saviour  is 
ihat,  all  must  receive  Christ  in  his  reign,  ^jth  the 
meekness,  humility  and  simplicity  of  little  chiureii. 
This  is  true  doctrine,  but  a  false,  or  incorrect  intei 
pretation.     If  our  Saviour  teaches  any  thing  ex- 
plicitly in  this  passage,  he  teaches  that  little  chil- 
dren were  the  subjects  of  his  kingdom,  and  that 
they  had  received  the  kingdom.     The  grammatical 
construction,  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  the 
scope  of  the  whole,  will  admit  of  no  other  meaning. 
In  support  of  this  interpretation  and  of  my  main  ar- 
gument, I  would  call  your  attention  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the   eighth  Psalm  by  the  little  children  in 
the  temple,  when  our  Saviour  made  his  public  en- 
trance into  Jerusalem,*     If  you  compare  Matthew 
*Mat»  sxi.    Mark,  xi,     Li>h  xix,- 


LETTER  VI.  87 

with  Luke,  you  will  find  that  what  one  says,  the  di+ 
ciples  did,  the  other  says  the  children  did ;  and  these 
children  are  called  babes  and  sucklings.  They  were 
such,  however  as  could  walk  up  to  the  mountain  of 
the  house;  could  sing,  and  be  classed  with  disciples, 
that  is,  learners.  They  received  him  in  the  tem- 
ple as  the  son  of  David  their  father,  and  their  re- 
ception of  him  appears  to  have  been  so  necessary, 
that  had  they  been  silent,  the  very  stones  would 
have  cried  out.  What  were  the  old  and  middle 
aged  about  that  they  could  not  perform  sufficiently 
the  part  performed  by  these  children?  The  simple 
fact  is,  there  were  few  believers  in  Jesus,  in  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and  those  parents  who  believed,  had  believing 
children,  and  these  children  were  more  numerous 
than  the  grown  believers.  The  former  may  have 
joined  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  that  conducted 
our  Saviour  into  Jerusalem,  whilst  the  children, 
instructed  respecting  his  character,  and  prepared 
to  receive  him,  ran  before  and  occupied  the  courts 
of  the  temple  to  hail  him  there.  You  may  say, 
what  is  the  bearing  of  all  this,  as  these  children 
were  miracuously  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
perform  this  part  in  honour  of  Christ?  I  reply, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  no  doubt  had  moved  upon  the 
minds  of  these  children,  but  he  was  not  yet  miracu- 
lously poured  out;  and  why  introduce  a  miracle, 
when  the  fact  can  be  accounted  for  without?  If 
the  parents  of  these  children  had  been  instructed 
and  baptized  of  John,  and  if  they  had  heard  Jcsi3 


88  LETTER  VI 

or  heard  of  him,  and  believed,  they  would  commun^ 
cate  to  their  children,  and  their  children  would 
believe,  and  be  influenced  accordingly.  All  this 
would  be  the  result  of  John  the  Baptist  turning  the 
hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  &x.  The 
bearing  of  the  whole,  then  is,  that  John  the  Bap- 
tist instead  of  preparing  a  people  to  give  up  their 
children  to  be  cast  out  of  their  ecclesiastical  rela- 
tion and  privileges,  prepared,  parents  and  children 
to  receive  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  they  did  receive 
him  and  were  recognized  *  as  the  members  of  hk 
kingdom.  One  more  instance  of  our  Saviour  ex- 
tending the  blessings  of  his  reign  to  families  upor^ 
the  principle  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  I  cannot 
omit.  It  is  that  of  the  family  of  Zaccheus.*  This 
man  appears  to  have  been  truly  made  a  new  crea- 
ture, and  when  he  received  Christ  as  a  guest  at  his 
table,  much  to  the  offence  of  the  Jews,  "  Jesus  said 
unto  him,  this  day  is  salvation  come  to  this  house, 
for  as  much  as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham."  The 
building  in  which  Zaccheus  dwelt  did  not  need  the 
salvation  of  God;  it  must  be  understood,  therefore? 
as  house,  often  is,  in  the  scriptures,  for  the  family. 
In  Abraham  all  the  families  of  the  earth  were  to  be 
blessed,  and  the  family  of  Zaccheus  was  blessed 
because  he  was  a  son  of  Abraham.  Take  this  and 
all  that  had  been  advanced  on  this  subject,  together 
with  Christ's  charge  to  Peter  to  feed  his  sheep  and 

lamb«,  and  what  we  have  in  the  acts  of  the  Apo>- 

*  fake  xix.  2, 10. 


LETTER  VI.  89 

ties  and  the  writings  of  Paul,  and  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable,  that  parents  and  children  stand,  and  en- 
joy privileges  in  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  as  they 
did  before  his  incarnation. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  another  view  of  the  sub- 
ject. We  have  generally  taken  it  for  granted  thai 
baptism  has  come  in  room  of  circumcision,  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  the  room  of  the  passover.  The 
fact  appears  to  be,  that  the  heathen  were  taken  in- 
to the  church  of  God  among  the  Jews  by  three 
rites,  viz#  circumcision,  baptism,  and  sacrifice :  but 
when  Christ  came  and  shed  his  blood,  the  bloody 
rites  of  circumcision,  and  sacrifice  ceased  to  be  ob- 
ligatory, or  necessary,  and  baptism  was  retained  as 
answering  every  purpose.  In  the  passover  the 
flesh  of  the  lamb,  unleavened  bread  and  bitter 
herbs,  and  wine  were  the  symbols  used — in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  bread  <md  wine  were  retained, 
and  the  other  symbols  laid  aside.  The  table  of  the 
Lord  in  the  passover  was  his  table  in  the  Supper.  It 
was  not  even  drawn,  and  spread  again.  All  there- 
fore who  sa^  at  it  in  the  passover,  must  be  consid- 
ered worthy  to  continue  it  when  the  bread,  and  the 
wine  ^ere  again  consecrated,  as  the  symbols  of  the 
Ne^v  Testament.  Had  little  children  been  there 
celebrating,  according  to  custom,  would  the  Sa- 
viour have  removed  them,  when  he  took  and  ad- 
ministered the  bread  and  wine  the  second  time  ?  I 
know  there  were  none  there,  nor  were  there  any 

H* 


90  LETTER  \l 

women;  but  supposing  they  had  been  there,  woula 
they  have  been  made  to  rise  and  walk  off  ? 

Before  I  advance  apostolic"example,  and  author- 
ity to  prove  that  ihe  law  of  the  passover,  was  net 
repealed  bat  continued  as  the  law  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  some  remarkson  the  place  and  manner  of 
forming  the  Lord's  congregation  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  of  partaking  of  that  ordinance,,  are  ne- 
cessary. We  have  seen  hew  the  Lord's  congregation, 
was  formed  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  When 
our  Saviour  tabernacled  in  flesh,  the  synagogue 
worship  had  been  instituted:  and  he  by  his  joining 
in  this  worship  and  preaching  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogues, sanctioned  the  same.  The  synagogues- 
were  built  after  the  form  of  the  temple,  and  con- 
sidered holy.  The  congregation  there  assembling 
must  be  holy.  No  heathen,  or  unclean  person  was 
permitted  to  enter,  and  unite  with  the  congrega- 
tion in  their  worship.  A  iew  under  the  sentence 
of  the  first  degree  of  ex-communication  might  be 
present,  but  was  not  permitted  to  tome  nearer  any 
other,  than  four  cubits,  (about  six  fee\-)  and  when 
he  was  delivered  over  to  satan,  by  the  sentence  of 
the  higher  ex-communication,  he  could  no  more  en- 
ter the  synagogue.  He  was  then  literally  cast  out-. 
and  was  to  be  treated  as  an  heathen  and  a  puWi- 
can.*  Thus  the  expressions,  of  casting  out — putting 
out — ihem  that  ai» without — and  them  that  are  within* 

*  Lewis.     Book  i.  Chap  9.     John  ix.  22,  34.    xvj* 
%     Mat.  x^iri-   17- 


LETTER  VI.  91 

which  we  find  used  in  the  New  Testament,  respec  • 
ting  the  ex-communication  of  church  members — - 
and  those  who  belong  to  the  church  and  those  who 
do  not,  signify  literally  a  putting  out  of  the  house  of 
worship,  and  those  who  were  permitted,  or  not  per- 
mitted to  be  present  in  the  religious  assembly  iu. 
the  celebration  of  their  sacred  rites.  The  large- 
upper  rooms  which  were  used  for  celebrating  the 
passover,  one  of  which  our  Saviour  and  his  disci- 
ples occupied  were  not  common  to  all  who  might 
wish  to  attend  as  spectators.  All  who  did  not  par- 
take, were  excluded.  In  these  large  upper  room-: 
we  find  the  disciples  assembling  after* our  Saviour's 
ascension;*  and  it  is  very  evident  that  none  but  the 
disciples  were  present.  After  sometime  they  as-* 
sembled  in  houses  procured,  or  erected  for  the 
purpose  of  accommodating  large  numbers;  and  these 
houses  were  called  churches  j\  as  well  as  the  congre* 
gation  that  assembled  in  them  for  worship.  The 
heathen  and  unbelievers  might  attend  without,  or 
at  the  doors  to  hear  the  word,  and  in  later  times 
might  be  admitted  within,  but  they  were  not  per- 
mitted to  be  present  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
administered.  This  custom  continued  in  the  church 
until  the  fourth  century.J  How  it  came  to  be  dis- 
pensed with,  and  persons  permitted  to  attend  as 
spectators,  without  partaking,  I  may  hereafter  give 
some  account.     This  we  may  rely  upon  as  a  fact 

*.fas  i.  13.  and  xx.  8.     t  1   Cor,  xi.  10.  and  i.  % 

XKing's  Primitive  Church* 


* 


9#  LETTER  V!. 

that  when  4;  the  disciples  came  together  to  break 
bread/'  when  the  church  came  together  to  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper,  none  were  admitted  to  meet  with 
them,  or  be  within  the  walls  of  the  large  upper 
room,  or  the  house,  who  did  not  partake  of  the  holy 
symbols.  Bearing  this  fact  in  mind  let  us  attend 
to  the  notices  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and 
in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  respecting  the  Lord's  Sup* 
per.  The  first  is  in  Acts  ii.  42,  46*  and  they  con- 
tinued stedfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  and  fel- 
lowship, and  in  breaking  of  bread,  ( Ton  avion,  the 
Loaj\)  and  in  prayers — and  they  continuing  daily 
with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread 
Vom  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with  glad- 
ness and  singleness  of  heart."  On  these  two  ver- 
ses and  the  intervening  ones,  1  remark : 

1 .  That  it  has  been  generally  conceded  that  the 
breaking  of  bread  in  the  42d  verse,  signifies  tha 
Lord's  Supper,  but  some  have  supposed  that  in  the 
46th  verse  it  means  a  common  meal.  I  am  disposed 
to  consider  the  latter  as  more  explicit,  and  as  ex- 
planatory of  the  former.  That  all  the  exerciser 
mentioned  in  these  two  verses,  except  the  breaking 
of  bread,  were  religious,  there  can  be  no  doubt  5 
find  why  it  should  not  be,  seeing  there  was  a  reli- 
gious breaking  of  bread,  no  good  reason  appears. 
Eating  their  meal  (literally  their  food)  with  glad- 
ness, and  singleness  of  heart  may  mean  their  ordin- 
ary meals — but  at  the  same  time  these  meals  were 
partook  of  exclusively  by  the  company  of  believers* 


LETTER  VL 

in&  in  a  religious  manner.  It  is  said,  ••  all  that  be 
lieved  were  together,  and  had  all  things  common ; 
and  sold  their  possessions  and  goods  and  parted 
them  to  all,  as  every  man  had  need."  Now  were 
there  none  among  the  believers  that  had  families, 
and  families  including  little  ones  that  needed  to 
partake  with  their  parents  in  the  things  which  were 
made  common?  Surely  the  first  Jewish  christians 
would  not  feed  the  needy  parents,  and  withhold 
from  the  more  needy  children,  It  is  obvious  that 
there  was  no  separation,  or  distinction  made  be- 
tween parents  and  children  in  this  common  distri- 
bution. Now  should  we  admit,  that  eating  meat, 
as  mentioned  in  the  46th  verse,  means  eating  in  or- 
dinary meals,  what  had  been  made  common  to  all, 
we  must  have  little  ones  included  among  the  parti- 
cipators: and  then  if  the  company  of  believers  con- 
tinued in  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  bread,  as  in 
the  42d  verse,  and  this  signified  a  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  upon  what  principle  then  known 
and  practiced,  were  the  little  ones  debarred?  No 
instructions  had  been  delivered  by  Peter,  or  any  of 
the  Apostles  informing  the  believing  Jews,  that 
their  children  were  not  to  partake  with  then  in  the 
New  Testament  passover,  and  the  :'• 
living  it.  as  had  been  the  lav   a    -  om  the 

daysoi  -    they  wbu  reforemost  certainly 

admitthen  . 

2.  I  mi  .  irk,  t:iat  there  appears  a  direct  ref- 

ce  in  the  46th  verse  to  the  manner  of  celcbpa- 


M  LETTER  VI. 

*ing  the  passover.  The  Israelites  were  to  cele- 
brate it  by  families — each  man  according  to  rm 
family.  And  the  words  used  by  the  LXX.  transla* 
tors  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek,  in  transla- 
ting Exo.  xii.  3,  21.  are  the  same  that  are  used  by 
the  sacred  historian,  in  the  46th  verse  of  Acts.  ii. 
and  our  translators  translate  precisely  the  same 
words  in  Chapter  v.  42,  every  house.  The  literal 
translation  would  be,  breaking  bread  according  to  the 
family.  The  act  was  participated  in  by  the  whole 
family  in  opposition  to  the  acts  of  the  whole  congre- 
gation performed  in  the  Temple.  No  one  private 
house  could  contain  three  thousand,  so  that  they 
might  celebrate  the  New  Testament  passover  in 
one  house  and  then  in  another.  But  they  could  all 
meet  in  the  temple,  and  perform  their  other  acts  of 
worship  there,  and  then  divide  off  into  families,  and 
celebrate  the  dying  love  of  the  Saviour  after  the 
manner  of  the  passover.  And  this  appears  to  be 
the  simple  meaning  of  the  language  which  seems  to 
"be  used  designedly,  by  the  historian,  in  his  first  no- 
tice of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  christian  church. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  would  not 
permit  the  the  followers  of  Jesus  to  celebrate  his 
supper  in  the  Temple,  commemorative  of  his  death, 
and  significant  of  life  through  him. 

The  next,  and  only  notice  of  the  Lordrs  Suppe1' 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  in  the  20th  Chapter; 
a-nd  it  is  introduced  just  after  mention  had  been 
atade  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  that  is,  the 


LETTER  VI.  95 

feast  of  the  passover,  verses  6-7.     This  instance 
was  about  twenty-five  years  after  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  in  a  heathen  City  where  the  Gospel  had 
"been  preached,  and  a  church  formed.     The  disci- 
ples came  together  to  break  bread,  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week ;  and  they  met  in  an  upper  chamber,  of 
the  third  story;  verse,  3-9.     Let  it  be  noted,  that 
the  disciples  came   together  in  this  private  apart- 
ment for  the  express  purpose  of  breaking  bread. 
Paul  made  use  of  the  occasion  for  other  religious 
exercises — he  preached  to  them — broke  bread,  and 
talked  a  long  while,  even  to  break  of  day.     It  was 
not  a  promiscuous  assembly,  composed  of  commu- 
nicants and  non-communicants,  but  exclusively  of 
disciples.     Now  the  question  is,  had  any  of  these  dis- 
ciples families,  including  little  children,  and  did 
their  children  meet  with  them  on   the  first  day  of 
the  week  for  the  public  worship  of  God  ?    If  chil- 
dren were  there,  they  were  disciples,  and  came  to 
break  bread  with  their  parents.     You  may  attempt 
to  evade  this  hy  saying,  if  the  disciples  had  children, 
they  were  all  left  at  home.     And  then  I  would  sim- 
ply state  that  you  have  a  religious  worshipping  as- 
sembly, unknown  either  among  Jews  or  christians, 
k^.h  evasion  nothing  but  a  bad  cause  i  ould  require. 
Le  us  now  attend  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul.     He 
takes  u^the  Lord's  Supper  explicitly  in  the  11th 
chapter  ofris  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ;  and 
here  is  the  principal  repeal  of  the  Law  of  the  passo- 
over,  which  I  have  found  advanced  by  any  living 


96  LETTER  VI. 

opponent,  or  dead  author.  "  Let  a  man  examine 
himself  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink 
of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  un- 
worthily, eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself 
not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  The  repealing 
force  of  this  passage  is  this;  "  self  examination,  and 
discerning  the  Lord's  body  are  required  of  all  who 
worthily  partake  of  his  table,  and  these  exercises 
imply  the  possession  of  knowledge,  faith  and  love 
of  which  little  children  must  be  considered  incapa- 
ble, and  therefore  they  are,  by  these  declarations 
of  the  Apostle,  debarred  from  this  ordinance*" 
In  reply  I  would  remark: 

1.  That  it  is  a  little  strange  that  a  repealing  act, 
setting  aside  the  right  and  privilege,  formerly  en- 
joyed by  little  children,  should  never  once  mention 
them,  nor  the  law  under  which  they  enjoyed  their 
right  and  privilege,! 

2.  The  Apostle  wrote  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians about  twenty-four  years  after  the  resurrec- 
tion of  our  Saviour.  All  this  time  the  law  was  un- 
repealed which  authorised  and  required  the  chil- 
dren of  God's  people  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Ta- 
ble. This  shows  that  it  was  not  a  part  of  the  cer- 
emonial law,  for  that  law  ceased  with  the  sacrifr-e 
of  Christ,  and  needed  no  repeal  at  so  late  a  r^ri°d» 

3.  The  occasion  of  repealing  little  chih*'ftn  from 
the  Lord's  Table,  if  this  was  a  repea'  °f  the  law, 
does  not  comport  with  the  character  of  the  Apdstle, 
or  the  spirit  of  inspiration,by  which  he  wrote*  The 


LETTER  VI.  97 

old  ones,  or  the  leaders  of  the  factions  in  the 
church  of  Corinth  grossly  profaned  the  table  of  th 
Lord;  and  reproof  and  exhortation  are  all  the  cen- 
sure indicted  upon  them,  whilst  the  unoffending  til- 
th sues  are  ex-communicated,  and  by  a  repeal  of  the 
jaw  heretofore  securing  them  the  privilege  of  the 
Lord's  table,  they  are  forever  to  be  separated  from 
their  parents  in  this  holy  ordinance!! 

4.  The  law  which  was  repealed,  was  clear  and 
explicit  respecting  the  subjetcs  of  the  Lord's  table. 
By  it  the  officers  of  the  church  had  a  plain  rule  to 
regulate  them,  in  admitting  and  debarring;  but  the 
repealing  act  furnishes  no  such  law.  It  in  fact 
leaves,  church  officers  without  one  syllable,  and  di- 
rects the  whole  that  is  said  to  individual  communis 
cants.  It  is,  "  let  a  man  examine  himself"  and  not 
let  the  church  officers  examine  him  whether  he  be 
regenerate,  or  not. 

5.  If  little  children  were  permitted  to  constitute 
a  part  of  the  religious  assembly  at  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  were  by  this  repeal- 
ing act  of  the  Apostle  debarred  from  participating, 
then  they  formed  a  party  in  the  church  of  that  sort 
which  he  condemns.  They  to  be  sure  were  not 
u  of  Paul,  of  Apolos,  or  Cephus,  but  they  were  a 
party  by  themselves;  and  if  so,  they  probably  were 
those  who  the  Apostles  savs  were  hungry,  whilst 
their  parent-  were  drunken!  These  little  ones  at 
Corinth,  it  appears,  according  to  the  interpretation 
given,  were  very  hardly  dealt  with,  whilst  the  old 

I 


9fi  LETTER  VJ, 

sinners  had  joyful  times  and  received  no  exrcommu 
nication. 

6.  According  to  the  improper  mode  of  celebra- 
ting the  Lord's  Supper  by  the  Corinthians,  the 
forming  of  groups,  or  seperate  parties  in  the  church 
is  specifically  mentioned.  If  the  children  were 
present,  and  debarred  from  the  participation  of  the 
elements,  then  they  formed  a  separate  party,  and 
thus  fell  under  the  censure  of  the  Apostle.  In  one 
place  there  was  the  party  of  Paul,  in  another  the 
party  of  Apollos — in  another  the  party  of  Cephus — > 
and  in  another  the  party  of  the  little  ones;  and  this 
last  party  had  no  provision  made  for  them.  Might 
we  not,  according  to  this  view  suppose  that  they 
were  the  hungry  ones  mentioned  by  the  Apostle, 
and  their  parents,  the  drunken? 

7.  The  argument  drawn  from  these  words  of  the 
Apostle  is  the  same  precisely  with  that  drawn  by 
our  Baptist  brethren  against  infant  baptism,  from 
Mark.  xvi.  15,  16,  and  Acts  viii.  37.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved — if  thou  be- 
Hevest  with  all  thine  heart  thou  maye9t."  The  ar- 
gument i»>  "  believing  is  the  condition  here  laid 
down  for  receiving  baptism;  infants  and  little  chil- 
dren cannot  believe,  and  therefore  they  are  not  to 
be  baptized."  How  do  we  meet  our  baptist  breth- 
ren, and  spoil  their  argument?  Why  we  say  the 
condition  of  believing  in  order  to  baptism  is  made 
for  adults,  not  infants;  and  if  it  includes  infantst  then 
they  cannot  be  saved;  for  believing  is  as.  much  a 


LETTER  VI.  39 

•condition  of  salvation,  as  of  baptism.  This  reply 
in  my  opinion,  unarms  the  baptist  fairly,  and  the 
texts  which  he  brings  to  repeal  infants  out  of  the 
church,  and  from  baptism  cannot  touch  them.  You, 
as  a  good  Psedobaptist  will  agree  with  me  in  this; 
if  so  where  is  the  force  of  the  texts  requiring  self 
examination,  and  discerning  the  Lord's  body  as  the 
condition  of  partaking  of  his  table,  when  brought  to 
bear  upon  little  children?  Were  they  the  sinners 
in  the  church  of  Corinth  against  which  Paul  levell- 
ed his  severe  reproofs,  and  tendered  his  exhorta- 
tions? Or  did  the  leaders  of  the  church,  sin,  and 
grossly  profane  the  table  of  the  Lord  by  admitting 
their  little  children  to  partake  with  them?  Where 
no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression ;  and  these  Cor- 
inthians had  no  law  forbidding  their  children  to 
partake  of  the  New  Testament  passover.  We  know 
from  the  explicit  declarations  of  the  Apostle,  that 
the  unworthy  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by 
the  Corinthians  consk$«d  in  something  ehe  than  the 
admission  of  little  children. 

8.  The  Apostle,  in  this  same  Epistle,  Chap.  vii. 
14.  had  declared  that  the  children  of  these  Corin- 
thians were  holy.  That  is,  as  we  Pasdoba  prists  un- 
dertand  it,  they  were  federally,  or  ecclesiastically 
holy — holy  enough  to  be  church  members,  and  to 
enjoy  the  holy  ordinance  of  baptism.  Had  they 
lost  their  membership  and  their  holiness,  by  the 
time  the  Apostle  had  written  on  to  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter J     The  Aposi'e  wrote  to  the  church  of  Corinth — 


100  LETTER  VL 

he  informed  that  church  that  their  children  were 
holy — were  members  along  with  their  believing 
parents,  and,  if  even  one  was  a  believer.  That 
church  met  together  in  one  place — came  together 
in  the  church.*  the  house  of  public  worship;  were 
Their  children  now  left  at  home,  as  too  unholy  to 
enter  the  house  of  God  ?  Take  notice,  this  church 
met  professedly  in  one  place  to  eat  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. None  but  members  were  present,  and  all  who 
were  present  must  partake.  The  Apostle  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  church  of  Ephesus,  makes  out  all 
their  children,  who  could  understand  and  obey  the 
fifth  commandment;  believers  and  saints — that  is 
faithfuls  and  holy  ones,  as  you  will  see  by  comparing 
chapter  i.  1.  with  vi.  1-4.  Such  were  the  children 
of  the  church  of  Corinth,  and  did  he  mean  to  debar 
the  faithfuls  and  holy  ones  from  the  table  of  the 
Lord  ?  Such  an  interpretation,  cannot  be  admitted, 
of  the  terms,  self-examination — and,  discerning  the 
Lord's  body.  The  simple  meaning  of  the  passage  is, 
that  the  leaders  of  the  church  of  Corinth  had  split 
it  up  into  factions — these  factions  assembled  in  the 
church  professedly  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,  but 
they  made  it  their  own  party  supper — made  it  to 
distinguish  between  the  several  parties,  and  some 
eat  and  drank  to  excess.  There  was  no  discerning 
of  the  Lord's  body,  by  the  symbols,  but  they  were 
used  at  common  bread  and  wine.  For  this  profan- 
ation of  the  ordinance  the  Apostle  reproves  thern.. 
Chap  xi.  18-20. 


LETTER  VI.  iuj 

and  efchorts  every  man  to  self-examination  and  a 
proper  use  of  the  sacred  symbols,  for  time  to  come. 
If  you  choose  you  may  implicate  the  children  in  the 
sins  of  their  parents,  but  until  thirteen  years  of  age 
they  were  not  accountable  to  the  officers  of  the 
church,  and  therefore  the  reproof  of  the  Apostle 
would  apply  exclusively  to  their  parents.  We  thus 
see  that  this  clause  so  frequently,  and  triumphantly 
brought  forward  by  some  Paedobaptist,  as  constitu- 
ting virtually  a  repeal  of  Old  Testament  law,  and 
establishing  a  new  law  respecting  the  passover,  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  has  been  grossly  perverted.  No 
lawyer  of  common  sense  could  ever  find  a  repeal  of 
a  law  in  this ;  and  the  context  with  other  declara- 
tions of  the  Apostles,  affords  strong  presumptive 
proof  that  little  children,  in  the  church  of  Corinth, 
partook  lawfully  of  that  ordinance. 

This  presumptive  proof  is  supported  by  the  chur- 
ches which  are  mentioned  in  the  Epistles  as  consti- 
tuted in  single  families,  or  houses.  There  was 
a  church  in  the  house  of  Priscilla,  and  Aquila.* 
There  was  also  a  church  in  the  house  of  Nymphas.j 
One  would  suppose  from  the  expression  in  these 
cases,  as  it  stands,  in  the  common  translation,  that 
some  of  the  neighbours  of  Priscilla,  Aquila  and 
Nymphas  had  been  constituted  into  churches*  and 
met  in  the  private  houses  of  these  men,  for  public 
worship.  This,  however,  is  not  the  idea  expressed 
in  the  Greek.     The  words  are  the  same  which  are 

*Rom.  xvi.  5.  i.  Cor.  xvi.  19.         \Col  iv.  16. 
I* 


m  LETTER  VL 

translated,  Acts  ii.  46  from  home  to  house — and  lH 
v.  42,  in  every  house.*  But  as  we  have  seen  in  these 
instances,  and  according  to  the  sense  and  use  of  the 
terms,  the  meaning  is,  according  to  the  family,  or  by 
the  family.  When  therefore  a  church  is  said  to  be 
in  a  man's  house,  the  meaning  is,  a  religious  society 
Consisting  of  his  family,  or  that  section  or  part  of  the 
church  composed  by  his  family.  In  this  view,  families^ 
as  families  including  the  young  and  middle  aged 
belonged  to  the-  church ;  assembled  together  as  fam- 
ilies for  worship,  and  as  families  thus  assembled  in 
a  church  capacity,  mnst  have  partook  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  the  distinguishing  ordinance  of  church 
members.  In  connection  with  these  remarks  it 
may  be  observed  that  household,  or  more  properly, 
family  baptism,  is  taught  in  the  New  Testament^ 
as  practiced,  but  not  as  anew  thing,  recently  insti- 
tuted. No  description  is  given  of  the  age,  or  quali- 
ftcations  of  the  members.  We  are  told  that  all  of 
a  certain  age  may  come  in  through  the  church 
standing  or  professed  faith  of  their  parents,  and  that 
all-over  a  certain  age  must  be  baptized  upon  a  prox- 
ies ion  of  their  own  faith.  The  practice  had  come 
down  from  the  household  or  family  baptism  of  pros- 
elytes among  the  Jews,  who  baptized  all  the  chil- 
dren under  thirteen  years  of  age  upon  their  par- 
euts  profession  of  faith  in,  and  obedience  to  the 
God  of  Israel.t 

*In  a  house,  is  not  expressed  in  the  Greek  New  Tes- 
tament by  Kata  oikon,  but  by,  en  oikia,  or  oiko. 
1  Lewis'*  Heb.  Ant.  iv.  2. 


LETTER  Yt  103 

From  household  baptism,  as  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament  we  have  argued  with  propriety  and 
no  small  force  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  But  the 
argument  is  equally  valid  and  forcible  in  favour  of 
little  children  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
sum  of  the  matter,  on  this  point,  is,  that  the  law- 
respecting  the  membership  of  children  in  the  church, 
and  their  rights  and  privileges  remained  unaltered 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Deny  this,  and  grant 
that  there  was  an  alteration  of  the  law,  depriving 
them  of  membership,  and  of  their  rights  and  privi- 
leges, and  you  and  the  Baptists  are  on  the  same 
ground.  You  must  produce  a  new  law  from  the 
New  Testament,  respecting  their  membership, 
rights,  and  privileges,  as  clear  and  as  explicit  as  the 
law  of  the  Old  Testament.  You  must  show  from 
the  new  law  that  their  membership,  and  their  priv- 
ileges are  curtailed,  and  not  the  same  substantially 
that  they  were  before  Christ  came.  When  you 
have  done  this,  I  know  a  certain  people,  who  would 
be  disposed  to  erect  a  monument  to  your  genius. 

Hebrews  viii.  7-13  has  been  adduced  as  contain- 
ing a  repeal  of  the  law  respecting  the  passover,  dnd 
the  right  of  children  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Ta- 
ble under  the  Mosaic  economy.  It  is  here  argu- 
ed that  the  passover  belonged  to  the  Sinai  cove- 
nant— that,  that  covenant  passed  away,  and  the 
passover,  and  the  law  designating  those  who  were 
worthy  communicants  passed  away  with  it.  To  all 
which  it  might  be  replied,  that  the  law  of  the  pass* 


104  LETTER  VT. 

over  was  given  to  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 
and  not  at  Sinai;  and  that  though  connected  with 
that  covenant,  and  typical,  as  far  as  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lamb  were  used  as  symbols,  yet  it  was 
an  ordinance  previous  to  the  giving  of  the  covenant* 
and  the  ceremonial  law  at  Sinai,  and  the  regula- 
tions respecting  the  characters  who  were  to  ap- 
proach unto  God  in  this  distinguishing  ordinance 
were  not  ceremonial.  But  waving  this,  I  remark 
secondly,  that  the  new  covenant  which  was  to  su- 
percede the  old,  according  to  the  Apostle,  in  the 
passage  referred  to,  there  was  not  to  be  a  curtail- 
ment of  privileges,  but  an  increase.  The  excel- 
lence, or  superiority  of  the  new  covenant,  did  not 
consist  in  debarring  children  from  approaching  un- 
to God,  with  their  parents  in  his  distinguishing  or- 
dinances, but  in  "  better  promises."  And  what 
were  some  of  those  promises? 

1.  This  new  covenant  was  to  be  made,  as  the  old 
was,  with  the  house  (the  family)  of  Israel  and  Ju- 
dah,  and  God's  laws  were  to  be  put,  not  in  an  ark  or 
chest,  but  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  his  people. 

2.  He  was  to  Jae  a  God  unto  them  and  they  were 
to  be  unto  him  a  people*  A  people  must  include 
little  children.     This  is  not  left  to  inference. 

3.  The  third  promise  of  the  new  covenant,  but 
which  may  be  considered,  the  second  "  better  prom- 
ise," is,  that,  "  all  shall  know  the  Lord" — and  that 
little  children  might  not  be  excluded,  it  is  adde«J, 
"'  from  the  least  to  the  greatest."     If  this  does  not 


LETTER  VII. 

include  little  children  from  the  time  they  can  knov. 
the  Lord,  what  can  it  mean?  He  who  can  see  a 
repeal  of  little  children  from  the  Table  of  the  Lordi 
in  this  passage,  has   "optics  sharp  I  wean.*" 

Yours.  &r> 


LETTER  7. 


The  argument  continued— -The  Holy   Scriptures  fur- 
ther considered. 

Dear  Sir: 

You  will  recollect  that  in  a  former 
letter  I  considered  the  following  principle  of  inter- 
preting the  word  of  God  conceded  by  my  Pasdobap- 
tist  brethren,  viz:  u  that  when  God  has  once  legis- 
lated on  a  subject  necessarily  requiring  his  legisla- 
tion, and  he  never  akers  or  repeals  the  act.  it  stands 
forever."  The  law  regulating  membership  in  the 
church,  and  the  privileges,  and  duties  of  members 
is  essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  church,  and  we 
have  found  an  explicit  law  of  God,  embracing  these 
subjects,  in  the  Old  Testament.  No  repeal  of  that 
law  in  the  New  Testament  has  yet  been  shown,  and 
I  may  venture  to  say  never  will  he  shown.  Nor 
ean  any  law  bs  produced  as  a  substitute,  regtila- 


•06  LETTER  VII. 

ling  membership,  and  the  enjoyment  of  church  pri\> 
ileges.  It  will  not  do  to  say,  that  the  law  of  the 
passover  was  ceremonial,  or  typical,  and  ceased  of 
course  when  Christ  came.  If  the  law  itself  was  a 
type,  we  ought  to  have  a  law  from  Christ,  as  its  an* 
ti-type,  or  substance.  If  the  membership  of  in- 
fants, and  little  children,  was  typical,  and  typical  of 
the  membership  of  those  newly  born  again,  and  ad- 
vanced a  little  in  the  christian  life  under  Messiah,  then 
the  membership  of  infants,  born  of  religious  parents, 
is  gone,  and  the  baptists  are  right.  If  the  law 
granting  to  children  of  three  years  and  upwards, 
the  privilege  of  partaking  of  the  passover,  was  typi- 
cal, I  wish  to  know  of  what?  If  we  must,  right  or 
wrong,  make  it  typical,  I  would  suppose  it  typical 
of  children  of  three  years,  and  upwards,  partaking 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  was  to  supercede  the 
passover.  But  if  the  law  of  the  Lord's  Table  in 
the  passover  was  a  typical  law — and  if  the  church 
then  was  a  typical  church — and  her  members  typi- 
cal members,  why  not  upon  the  same  principle 
maintain  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  a  typical  God — 
and  that  then  there  were  only  typical  penalties, 
and  rewards — a  typical  hell,  and  a  typical  heav- 
en; and  that  when  Messiah  came  we  got  the 
substance  of  all  these  types?  For  my  part  1  must 
believe  that  there  was  among  the  Israelites  a  true 
©jid  substantial  God — a  true  and  substantial  church 
with  true  and  substantial  laws,  members  and  Table 
-and  this  God  and  hi*  Table  were  as  holy  then 


LETTER  yiL  10? 

they  are  now,  and  that  there/ore  the  same  law  must 
regulate  the  approaches  to  that  God  and  that  Table 
— it  must  admit  and  debar  the  same  kind  of  char- 
acters. If  we  have  another  God^ — another  church — 
another  Table,  and  other  sort  of  characters  parta- 
king of  that  Table,  then  there  is  a  propriety  in  lay- 
ing aside  the  old  law,  and  substituting  a  new.  A 
little  discrimination  may  relieve  the  mind  of  any  so- 
berly reflecting  person,  with  respect  to  this  subject. 
Certain  symbols  used,  at  the  Lord's  Table  under 
the  Old  Testament,  it  is  granted,  on  all  hands,  were 
typical,  but  it  does  not  thence  follow,  that  the  Table 
was  typical,  or  that  the  law  regulating  admission  to 
that  table  was  a  typical,  or  ceremonial  law.  The 
body  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  was  one  of  the  symbols 
formerly  laid  on  the  Lord's  Table  and  was  typical: 
it  was  discontinued  when  Christ  the  true  Lamb  of 
God  was  sacrificed,  of  whom  it  wras  a  type,  but  the 
Table,  the  bread,  and  the  wine  were^not  laid  aside. 
If  they  were  formerly  types  they  are  so  still — if  they 
were  ceremonial,  they  are  ceremonial  still. 

The  Apostles  in  illustrating  the  nature  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  the  privileges  and  duties  of 
her  members,  had  recourse  to  the  house  of  God,  and 
those  who  partook  of  its  privileges  under  the  old 
dispensation;  and  they  are  far  from  inculcating  a 
a  change  of  the  law  respecting  that  house,  w  which 
is  now  the  church  of  the  living  God." 

We  have  before  ascertained  that  those  who  were 
considered  worthy  tostaafl  in  any  one  court  of  the 


*08  LETTER  VII. 

house  of  God,  were  worthy  to  enjoy  the  ordinan- 
ces there  administered;  and  it  was  as  criminal  to 
profane  the  house  by  an  unhallowed  entrance,  as 
to  profane  its  ordinances.  The  use  I  now  am  about 
to  make  of  this,  may  expose  me  to  the  charge  of  Ju- 
daizing,  I  therefore  produce  Paul  and  Peter,  as  my 
precedents.  They  both  teach  us  that  th«  church 
under  Christ  answers  to  the  house  of  God  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation.  "Paul  taught  Timothy, 
"  how  to  behave  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the 
church  of  the  living  God."*  And  in  addressing 
the  Corinthian  church,  he  writes  thus ;  *  know  ye 
not  that  ye  are  the  Temple  of  God?  If  any  man 
defile  the  Temple  of  God,  him  will  God  destroy,  for 
the  Temple  of  God  is  holy  which  Temple  ye  are."t 
Again,  what  agreement  hath  the  temple  of  God 
with  idols;  for  ye  are  the  temple  of  the  living  God; 
as  God  hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in 
them,  and  I  will  be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  my 
people.v|  To  the  Ephesian  church  he  writes;  "in 
whom  (that  is  Christ)  all  the  building  fitly  framed 
together  groweth  unto  an  holy  Temple  in  the  Lord : 
in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together  for  an  habita- 
tion of  God  through  the  Spirit."?  Peter  says  to 
believers ;  u  ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal 
priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,  that 
ve  sb^ld  shew  forth  the  praises  of  Him,  who  hath 
called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light."§ 

*  i.  Tim.  iii.  15.     t  i.  Cor.  iii.  16, 17.  \  ii.  Cor.  \ 
^EpK'n-  21,22.  §i.Pe£,ii.  9, 


LETTER  VII.  109 

What  nre  we  taught  by  all  this?  First,  that  the 
church  of  God  now  is  his  house  where  he  dwells  as 
really,  as  were  the  Tabernacle  and  Temple — and 
that  it  is  equally  holy. 

Second,  that  the  gross  violation  of  God's  law  by 
the  members  of  the  church  is  as  displeasing  to  him, 
and  dangerous  to  them,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Mo- 
ses and  Solomon. 

Third,  that  all  the  visible  members  of  the  church9 
old  and  young  together,  are  a  royal  priesthood ',  and 
a  holy  nation,  and  as  such,  have  a  right  to  a  place 
in  God's  house,  and  to  all  the  holy  ordinances 
thereof, as  the  priests,  and  God's  hoi}  people,  had  to 
the  Tabernable  and  Temple,  and  all  the  holy  ordi- 
nances there  enjoyed. 

Fourth,  that  to  continue  any  one  in  the  church, 
registered  as  a  member,  who  is  unholy,  and  immor- 
al in  his  conduct,  is  as  criminal  a  profanation  of  the 
church  of  God  now,  as  it  was  to  admit,  and  contin- 
ue the  unclean,  or  strangers  in  the  Tabernacle,  or 
Temple.  The  Apostles,  it  appears  evident,  had 
not  learned,  that  there  were  some  members  of  the 
church,  who  were  merely  holy  enough  to  be  mem- 
bers, and  not  holy  enough  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper — some  who  might  continue  in  the  house, 
and  were  worthy  of  retaining  their  names  there, 
but  not  worthy  to  sit  at  the  Table,  spread  for  the 
inmates  of  the  house.  And,  indeed,  it  appears  a 
little  strange,  how  any  ever  learned  to  cherish  such 

an  unscripturai  and  absurd   notion.     Let  us  he  at 
K 


LETTER  VII. 

least  consistentj  and  deny  to  parents,  altogether 
the  recognition  of  their  children  as  members  of  the 
church  by  baptism.  If  we  recognise  them,  and  say 
they  are  members  and  still  continue  them  on  record 
as  members,  let  us  treat  them  as  such.  Let  us  not 
say,  to  them,  you  may  -ray  in  the  house  of  God,  bu£ 
you  shall  not  partake  of  his  Table — you  may  con- 
tinue in  the  family  of  God,  and  perform  none  of  the 
duties  of  a  member,  but  even  grossly  violate  the 
law  by  which  it  is  governed,  and  all  the  penalty 
we  will  inflict,  is,  that  you  shall  not  partake  of  the 
family  Table  in  a  particular  feast.  Why  Sir,  if  we 
were  not  under  a  merciful  dispensation,  such  a  pro- 
fanation of  God's  house  would  be  instant  «d<  s 
tion.  One  of  the  objections  to  the  views  and  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Paris  Session,  which  has  been  urged 
and  urged  with  much  effect  with  seme,  is  that  the 
consequence  must  be,  to  fill  the  church  with  irreli- 
gious and  wicked  members.  Whereas  it  is  one 
principal  object  of  the  Session  to  clear  the  church 
of  euch  members,  and  to  take  measures  to  prevent 
their  multiplication  for  the  future.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  scripture,  it  is  their  object,  4ito  cleanse  the 
hou-eof  God,"  and  to  stand  as  porters  and  watch- 
it  the  entrance  of  the  •stranger  and  the 
an.  The  objection  urged,  must  take  it  for 
1  :d,  that  baptized  children  are  not  in  the  church, 
the  house  of  God,  that  is,  they  are  not  church  mem- 
be]-.  Let  this  ground  be  taken,  and  then  there 
will  b  But  so  long  as  persons 


LETTER  VII.  i  i  i 

will  hold  to  infant  baptism,  and  will  bring  forward 
their  children,  to  be  iccognized  as  members  of  the 
church,  and  put  under  consecration  to  God  in  bap- 
tism, and  then  permit  them  to  grow  up  in  ignorance, 
disobedience,  and  the  open  violation  of  his  law, 
and  cry  out  bitterly  against  their  being  cut  off,  such 
persons,  and  not  Paris  Session  are  really  filling  the 
house  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the  living 
God,  with  irreligious  and  wicked  members.  Of 
Such  God  complained  of  old,  when  he  said,  "  they 
have  dealt  treacherously  against  the  Lord;  for  they 
have  begotten  strange  (heathen)  children.*  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God,  O  ye  house  of  Israel,  let  it  suf- 
fice you  of  all  your  abominations  in  that  ye  have 
brought  into  my  Sanctuary  strangers  uncircumcised 
in  heart,  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh  to  be  in  my 
Sanctuary  to  pollute,  even  my  house."!  Multitudes 
of  such  are  now  in  God's  church,  his  holy  house. 
and  their  number  is  daily  and  rapidly  increasing, 
much  more  rapidly  than  the  number  of  the  truly  pi- 
ous. Parents  rush  with  their  children  to  baptism— 
the  watchmen  and  porters  admit  them — they  stand 
registered  on  the  church's  records,  as  members — - 
they  disregard  her  instructions— -trample  upon  her 
iaws — spurn  her  government — mingle  with  the 
world  in  sin  and  folly,  and  if  there  should  be  a  few 
faithful  watchmen,  to  raise  their  voice,  and  talk  of 
discipline,  and  ex-communication,  they  do   so   at 

*Hos.  v.  7.     \Ezc  xiiv.  6.  1     In  the  Hebrew— 
u  children  ofstranga  , 


112  LETTER  VH. 

their  peril!  O  Sir!  were  the  Saviour  to  come  a* 
mong  us  would  he  find  his  Father's  house  in  a  pur- 
er state  than  he  found  it  among  the  Jews  ?  A  faith- 
ful observance  and  execution  of  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  Christ's  church  can  never  fill  it  with 
irreligious  and  unholy  members:  but  the  neglect  of 
those  laws,  and  the  substitution  of  the  doctrines 
and  customs  of  men  have  filled  it  with  such  charac- 
ters. 

You  will  pardon,  Sir,  this  digression  which  you 
may  term  declamation  and  invective,  and  return 
with  me  to  the  argument. 

The  illustration  which  the  Apostle  Paul  gives, 
in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, of  the  church;  and  the  casting  out  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles,  under  the 
figure  of  an  Olive  Tree,  has  been  used  with  great 
force  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  Is  it  not  of  equal 
force  in  favour  of  little  children  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper?  The  natural  branches,  the  Jews 
and  their  children  were  cut  off,  and  the  branches  of 
the  wild  Olive,  the  Gentiles,  and  their  children 
were  grafted  in ;  and  being  in,  they  partook  of  the 
same  privileges,  if  not  in  form,  at  least  in  substance, 
that  were  enjoyed  by  those  that  were  cut  off.  This 
is  the  Pasdobaptist  argument ;  and  I  have  never  yet 
heard  it  refuted.  Now  if  children  of  three  years 
old  and  upwards  partook  of  the  passover  with  their 
parents  among  the  Jews;  and  the  Gentiles  and 
their  children   have  come  into   the  same  church 


LETTER  Vlfr  113 

standing  and  privileges,  must  they  not  partake  to- 
gether of  that  ordinance  which  answers  to  the  pass- 
over?  How  any  consistent  Psedobaptist  can  evade 
this  argument  I  know  not;  but  should  he  succeed  I 
know  the  Baptists  will  be  indebted  to  him  for  a  ve- 
ry great  favour. 

In  connection  with  this  argument  let  us  attend  to 
another  of  the  same  nature  furnished  by  the  Apos 
tie  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesian  church.  That 
church  was  addressed  as  made  up  of  saints  and  faith* 
/«/,  and  when  the  Apostle  in  the  application  of  the 
doctrines  and  instructions  advanced  in  the  body  ol 
the  Epistle  addresses,  by  way  of  exhortation,  the 
several  classes  of  which  the  church  was  composed, 
mentions  wives  and  husbands — children  and  parents — ■ 
servants  and  masters.*  If  any  one  should  say  that 
children  here,  are  children  come  to  the  years  of 
maturity; I  reply,  and  say,  if  so,  then  the  exhorta- 
tion of  the  Apostle  will  not  apply — for  they  are  ex- 
horted to  be  obedient  to  their  parents;  and  their 
parents  are  exhorted  to  bring  them  up  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  They  were  not 
yet  brought  up;  and  they  were  such  as  were  sub- 
jects of  the  fifth  commandment  given  to  the  children 
of  Israel  at  Mount  Sinai. 

Again,  if  any  should  say  that  the  children  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus  were  not  saints  and  faithfuls^ 
then  I  say,  with  the  same  propriety,  that  the  wives 
and  husbands,  the  parents,  servants  and  masters^ 

*Chap.y.  22-25.     vi.  1-9. 

R* 


114  LETTER  VII. 

that  were  addressed  as  constituting  the  church 
were  not  saints  and  faithfuls.  You  may  fix  what  in- 
terpretation you  please  to  the  terms  saints  and  fc/M 
fid;  whatever  the  Apostle  meant  by  them  that  the 
children  were  as  truly  as  the  parents.  Now  the 
saints  and  faithful  at  Ephesus,  when  in  their  heathen 
state  had  been  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  ot 
Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise, 
having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world,  but 
when  they  embraced  the  Gospel,  they  became  "fel- 
low-citizens, with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household 
of  God.*  Fellow-citizens  of  what  saints?  Why 
those  who  had  been  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
and  had  the  covenants  of  promise,  securing  all 
church  privileges  to  families — to  parents  and  their 
children.  The  Ephcsians  therefore  becoming  fel- 
low-citizens of  the  saints,  were  saints  themselves, 
and  they  came  into  all  the  privileges  of  citizens — 
the  privilege  of  being  recognised  as  citizens  by  the 
distinguishing  ordinances,  appointed  for  the  purpose. 
In  this  way  the  Apostle  reasons,  when  he  says,  "  the 
Gentiles  are  fellow  heirs,  and  of  the  same  body,  and 
partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by  the  Gospel."t 
Fellow  heirs  of  what  ?  Of  every  privilege  which  the 
Israelites  enjoyed,  and  which  the  first  believing 
Jews  enjoyed, before  the  Gentiles  were  brought  in. 
If  these  Jews,  by  believing  on  Christ  had  their 
privileges  curtailed — and  lost  the  privilege  of  hav- 
ing their  children  recognised  with  them  in  the  dis- 
*  Chap.  ii.  \%  19.  tChap,  iii.  6. 


LETTER  VII.  \U> 

1 i  nguishing  seals  of  God's  covenant,  then  they  were 
not  heirs  of  Abraham  and  the  promise  made  to  him. 
and  the  Gentiles  uniting  with  them  were  not  fellow 
heirs.  The  inheritance  had  passed  away,  and  they 
were  fellow  heirs  of •. 

If  the  Apostle's  argument,  has  any  foundation, 
and  any  force,  the  Gentile  believers  came  into  the 
enjoyment  of  all  those  privileges  from  which  they 
had  been  debarred  by  the  former  dispensation,  in 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  Now,  Sir,  admit  this 
and  the  little  saints  and  faithfuls,  partook  of  the  dis- 
tinguishing privileges,  along  with  their  parents  in 
the  church  of  Ephesus.  If  any  deny  that  they  par- 
took of  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  deny  that  they  partook 
of  baptism. 

In  support  of  this  argument,  I  would  remark,  that 
the  Apostle,  not  only  illustrates  the  church  mem- 
bership and  privileges  of  the  saints  of  Ephesus  by 
the  former  membership  and  privileges  among  the 
Jews,  but  also  by  contrasting  the  mysteries  of  the 
Gospel  with  the  mysteries  of  the  Heathen,  or  those 
mysteries  into  which  the  Ephesians  had  been  initia- 
ted, and  which  they  enjoyed  in  the  Heathen,  idol- 
atrous state.  To  be  satisfied  of  this,  compare 
Chapter  Hi.  2-12  with  v.  7-13:  and  consult  Mo 
Nigh? s  preface  to  this  Epistle,  Sect.  vii. 

Infants  were  initiated  into  these  Heathen  myste- 
ries among  the  Greeks,  as  was  before  shown,  and 
they  partook  of  the  wicked  and  idolatrous  rites  with 
cthe\r  parents,  which  were  celebrated  in  the  in^ 


11G  LETTER  VII. 

rior  of  their  Temples,  in  the  darkness  of  night.  Im- 
itating, but  corrupting  and  prostituting,  the  reli- 
gious rites  instituted  by  the  true  God,  among  the 
Isralites,  the  heathen  had  their  sacred  Temples — 
their  lustrations,  their  feasts  upon  sacrifice;  from 
all  which  the  profane,  and  those  not  initiated  were 
excluded.  Above  the  doors  of  their  Temples  was 
written  in  large  letters,  Procul,  Procul  este  profani; 
O,  ye  profane,  keep  far,  far  away!  Thus  the  reli- 
gious rites  enjoyed  within  their  temples  were  free 
only  to  the  initiated,  and  no  other  were  permitted 
to  be  present.  Hence  these  rites  were  called  mys- 
teries* They  were  kept  secret  and  out  of  view  of  all 
but  the  worshippers,  who  had  been  initiated  and 
professed  allegiance  to  the  God,  or  Godess  to  whom 
the  Temple  had  been  dedicated.  The  Apostle,  in 
allusion  to  this,  says,  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, "  the  things  which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice 
they  sacrifice  to  Devils  and  not  to  God,  and  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  have  fellowship  with  Devils.  Ye 
cannot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of 
Devils ;  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  Ta- 
ble and  the  Table  of  Devils."*  It  appears  that  the 
Gentiles  had  initiated  the  people  of  God  in  their 
sacrifices,  and  feasting  upon  them,  but  now  they  are 
contrasted  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and 
the  feast  instituted  upon  it.  The  Jews  and  the 
Gentiles  had  their  children  initiated — had  them 
partakers  of  their  sacrificial  feasts,  their  mysteries—- 
*Chap.  x.  20,  21. 


LETTER  VIL  ?17 

the  church  of  Ephesus  was  composed  of  parents 
and  children — all  declared  to  be  saints,  initiated  by 
baptism — they  had  left  the  Heathen  mysteries,  and 
become  heirs  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel — they 
had  left  the  Table  of  Devils  and  came  to  the  Table 
of  the  Lord ;  would  they  contrary,  both  to  Jews 
and  Heathen,  separate  from  that  table  the  little 
ones?  You  cannot  with  any  consistency,  or  the 
least  shadow  of  authority  say,  that  the  inheritance 
shall  descend  to  some  of  the  heirs  and  not  to  others. 
The  church  of  Ephesus  was  called  into  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
church  was  composed  of  wives  and  husbands — chil- 
dren and  parents — servants  and  masters,  and  with 
the  same  propriety  that  you  debar  one  of  these- 
classes  from  the  Table  of  the  Lord,  the  whole  may 
be  debarred. 

The  Apostle  John  affords  some  incidental  proof 
similar  to  that  now  advanced  in  favour  of  little 
children  forming  a  class  in  the  church  of  God  well 
known  as  entitled  to  distinguishing  privileges.  In 
his  first  Epistle  he  addresses  christians  in  general 
under  the  endearing  appellation  of  "  my  little  chil- 
dren.'** That  the  words  are  here  used  in  their  se- 
condary, and  figurative  sense  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
But  when  he  addresses  the  same  christians,  accor- 
ding to  their  differents  ages,  he  uses  the  words, 
little  children  in  their  literal  meaning,  without  the 
endearing  adjective,  my — "I  write  unto  you,  little 

*  Chap,  ii,  1,  18,  28, 


LETTER  VII. 

children— I  write  unto  you  fathers— ^1  Write  tin 

you  young  men/'*  This  is  an  additional  instance 
of  children  forming  a  constitutional  class,  and  part 
of  a  christian  church,  and  the  special  objects  of  A- 
postolic  instruction;  and  an  instance  that  little  chil- 
dren, not  thirteen  years  of  age,  are  under  special 
obligations,  and  called  to  perform  their  part  as 
church  members.  It  shows  that  minors  after  in- 
fancy were  fcnown  and  distinguished,  as  little  chil- 
dren, and  youth.  The  class  of  infants  is  not  men- 
tioned in  this  place,  because  they  could  not  yet,  be 
fit  subjects  of  instruction  and  exhortation.  But  I 
have  introduced  this  passage,  principally,  to  show, 
that  what  was  said  before  respecting  the  different 
classes  of  minors,  was  known  and  recognised  in  the 
New  Testament  church;  and  for  the  purpose  of 
supporting  what  will  hereafter  be  introduced  Oh 
the  subject. 

The  evidence  now  submitted  appears  to  me,  to 
clear  the  Cod  of  the  Bible  from  \  iolating,  in  his 
I  ositive  institutions,  the  unity  which  he  established 
.  the  law  of  nature,  between  parents  and  their 
children.  A  clear  and  explicit  law  from  the  Old 
Testament  has  been  produced,  securing  to  children 
with  their  parents,  membership  and  the  distinguish- 
ing privileges  of  the  church  of  God;  and  the  New 
Testament,  so  far  from  containing  a  repeal  of  this 
law,  plainly  recognises  it  and  the  law  of  nature  as 
in  force,  regulating  the  Apoatlic  churche*. 
;V  Verses  1 2,  1 3.     More  properly,  yc  1 1 ( k 


LETTER  VII. 

You  may  say  with  respect  to  the  evidence  from 
the  New  Testament;  "is  it  not  strange  that  on  a 
subject  of  so  much  importance  as  communion  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  nothing  more  explicit  respec- 
ting little  children  partaking,  should  he  produced. 
Why  are  we  not  told  in  so  many  words  that  it  was* 
their  privilege  and  duty  to  partake  of  this  ordi- 
nance ;  and  that  they  actually  did  partake  of  it  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles?     To  this  I  reply, 

1.  By  asking,  why  on  a  subject  of  so  much  im- 
portance, as  infant  baptism  nothing  more  explicit 
should  be  produced  by  its  advocates  from  the  New 
Testament! 

2.  If  an  alteration  in  the  constitution  of  the  church 
respecting  the  membership  of  children,  and  their 
enjoyment  of  privileges  had  been  found  necessary 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles ;  or  if  any  believing  par- 
ents, either  Jews,  or  Gentiles,  had,  in  those  days, 
fallen  out  with  their  children,  and,  regardless  of  all 
natural  affection,  wished  them  turned  out  of  the 
church,  by  a  repeal  of  the  law,  which  made  them 
members,  then  we  might  rationally  expect  to  find 
something  very  particular  and  explicit  on  the  sub- 
jects of  their  standing  and  their  privileges.  Infant 
baptism,  and  the  right  of  little  ones  to  the  Lord's 
Table,  we  might  find  treated  as  clearly  and  as  fully 

,;  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  or  of  justifica- 
tion before  God,  by  faith  alone.  But  as  it  appears 
there  were  none,  in  the  Apostle's  days  so  unnatural 
and  wicked,  as  to  wish  their  children  separated 


120  LETTER  VII. 

from  them  in  the  precious  and  distinguishing  privi-- 
leges  of  the  church,  we  have  precisely  such  notices  in 
reference  to  infant  membership,  infant  baptism  and 
the  communion  of  little  children  as  might  be  ex- 
pected. As  the  case  was,  it  would  be  strange  in- 
deed if  these  subjects  had  been  taken  upand  discuss- 
ed with  the  same  explicitness  and  fullness,  as  we 
find  them  treated  in  the  Old  Testament.  Infants 
had  been  members — had  enjoyed  the  distinguishing 
seal  of  God's  covenant — and  little  children  had  ta- 
ken their  seats  with  their  parents  at  the  Lord's  Ta- 
ble in  the  passover  from  the  days  Moses.  No  one 
thought  the  law,  and  the  practice,  after  an  experi- 
ment, of  nearly  two  thousand  years,  unnatural,  in- 
jurious, and  such  as  should  cease  forever.  Why 
then  legislate  again  on  these  subjects  when  there 
was  no  necessity,  and  no  one  calling  for  it?  You 
should  recollect,  that  according  to  the  rules  of  con- 
troversy I  am  not  bound  to  prove  a  negative — that  is, 
prove  that  God  has  not  violated  the  law  of  nature, 
and  has  not  repealed  his  law  of  the  Old  Testament, 
respecting  parents  and  children.  If  any  should  as- 
sert that  he  has,  they  are  bound  to  prove  their  as- 
sertion. But,  however,  the  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  negative  may  be  deficient  in  explicitness  and 
fullness,  I  must  consider  it  satisfactory  until  some* 
;hing  more  explicit  and  full  be  advanced  in  support 
of  the  affirmative. 

I  am  yours,  &c. 


£,ETTER  8. 


Church.  History — Ignatius — Primitive  churches — fnfcmt 
communion — Church  of  Rome — Reformed  chur- 
ches— Differ  in  their  vitictis  and  practice  in  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries — American  churches* 

Dear  Sir: 

As  the  holy  scripture?  are  the^er- 
fee!  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  in  the  church 
of  God.  and  as  they  are  very  explicit  and  decisive 
on  the  subject  we  have  been  considering,  it  may  ap- 
pear superfluous  to  call  in  the  aid  of  church  histo- 
tory,  and  adduce  human  authority  in  support  of 
what  is  abundantly  established  by  divine,  I,  how- 
ever, am  aware  that  in  the  present  case,  as  in  many 
others,  resort  will  be  had  to  the  practice  and  views 
of  the  primitive,  and  even  more  modern  christian 
church.  If  I  therefore  can  show  that  the  views 
and  practice  given  from  the  scriptures,  in  the  pre- 
ceding letters,  are  supported  by  church  history 
much  cavil  may  be  obviated. 

It  may  be  necessary  in  this  place  to  caution  you 
against  expecting  any  thing  in  church  history,  ve- 
ry explicit  on  the  subject  of  little  children  parta- 
king of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  first  and  second 
centuries.     The  subject  was  not  agitated — there 

L 


IjB  LETTER  VIII. 

;vere  none  to  deny  them  the  privilege,  which  ther 
had  long  enjoyed  in  the  house  of  God.  We  may, 
therefore,  look  only  for  incidental  references,  and 
circumstantial  proof,  such  as  we  have  in  the  New 
Testament,  though  in  many  instances  much  stron- 
ger. 

All  ecclesiastical  historians  of  any  note,  agree 
that  the  Lord's  supper  for  nearly  the  two  first  centu- 
ries, was  in  most  of  the  churches,  celebrated  with 
great  simplicity,  every  Lord's  day,  and  in  some 
twice  on  that  day,  and  two  or  three  times  through 
the  week,  or  on  every  day.*  No  pomp — no  pa- 
rade— no  lengthy  religious  exercises,  were  then  ap- 
pended to  it;  hut  it'was  observed  with  the  simplici- 
ty that  marked  its  first  celebration  by  Christ  and 
his  disciples. 

Ignatius,  Bishop  of  the  ehurch  of  Antioch,  and 
who  suffered  Martyrdom,  A.  D.  107,  wrote  certain 
Epistles  to  the  churches  of  Asia,  which  are  yet  ex- 
tant. In  these,  he  exhibits  the  church  as  "the  Tem- 
ple of  God" — and  church  members  as  those  admit- 
ted within  unto  the  Altar,  by  the  Bishop,  and  El- 
ders, and  Deacons.t  And, "  every  one  without  the 
Altar  was  unclean,  and  deprived  of  the  bread  of 
God;"  all  within  partook  of  that  bread.  To  the 
Philadelphians,  his  language  is,"  I  write  to  you  and 

"John  Brown  of  Haddington's  Spol.  for  Treg.  Com. 
Cahins  Inst.  dart.    The  Lord's  Supper. 

]Epis.  to  the  Magnesians — to  the.  Phitadelphiem^ 
Evhesians  and  Trallians, 


LETTER  VIIL 


. 


Admonish  you,  that  you  use  one  faith,  one  preach 
ing,  and  one  Eucharist ;  for  there  is  one  flesh  of  dur 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  one  blood  shed  for  us,  one 
bread  broken  for  all,  and  one  cup  distributed  to  all  t 
one  altar  for  every  church,  and  one  fhshop  with 
the  Presbytery  and  the  Deacons,  my  fellow  citi- 
zens." And  in  the  same  Epistle,  like  the  Apostle 
Paul,  he  addresses  the  various  classes  which  com- 
posed the  church — and  constituted  the  all,  to  whom 
the  broken  bread,  and  the  cup  were  distributed, 
viz:  wives  and  husbands — virgins,  children  and  par 
ents — servants  and  masters. 

In  the  same  Epistles,  he  represents  the  church, 
or  people  of  God  as  seperated,  and  alone  in  the  par- 
ticipation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  was  the  custom 
ip  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  All  that  were  permit- 
ted  to  be  present  were  communicants.  All  the 
church  were  exhorted  to  meet  together  in  one  place, 
and  to  "  be  diligent  to  come  together  more  frequent- 
ly to  the  Eucharist  of  God  for  his  glory.5'  Were- 
not  the  little  children  included? 

Speaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  Ignatius,  in  one 
instance,  uses  very  strong  figurative  language,  which 
appears  afterwards  to  have  led  to  infant  commun* 
ion  and  much  superstition.  He  calls  the  bread 
broken,  "the  medicine  of  immorality — the  anti- 
dote of  death,  but  life  with  God,  through  Jesus' 
Christ — the  medicamentum  expelling  all  evils." 

In  the  account  which  histories  give  us  of  the 
church  and  worship  of  God  in  the  second  and  third 


m  LETTER  VI1L 

centuries,  we  have  the  three  following  classes  m6fl 
tioned — the  Audientes,  the  mere  hearers— the  Cai& 
chwnem.  those  from  the  heathen  who  were  under 
catechetical  instruction  as  preparatory  for  admis- 
sion into  the  church  by  Baptism,  and  the  perfect,  or 
faithful,  who  were  members  entitled  to  all  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  church.  The  first  class  might  enter 
rhe  place  of  worship,  and  hear  the  word  read,  and 
preached;  but  they  could  not  be  present  when  the 
prayers  were'  offered.  The  second  class  might  not 
only  hear, but  remain  and  join  in  tat  prayers: 
could  not  be  present  at  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  until  they  had  advanced  to  the  degree  of  the 
competents  or  perfect.  Then  they  were  baptized  and 
partook  of  the  otherordinances.*  "All  those  that  were 
baptized  were  looked  upon  as  members  of  the  church, 
and  had  a  right  to  all  the  privileges  thereof,  except 
they  had  been  guilty  of  gross  and  scandalous  sins, 
as  idolatry,  murder,  adultery,  and  such  like,  for  then 
*hey  were  cast  out  of  the  church.*'!  "When  the 
other  parts  of  divine  worship  were  ended  and  the 
celebration  of  the  eucharist  was  to  begin,  the  Ca- 
techumens, the  penitents  and  all  except  the  cemmu- 
eants  were  to  depart,  as  Tertullian  says  hereon  "pi- 
ous initiations  drive  caoay  the  profane"  These  being 
mysteries  which  were  to  be  kept  secret  and  conceal- 
ed from  all  except  the  faithful,  inasmuch  as  to  othf 
jrs,  the  very  method  and  manner  of  their  action* 

* 'King's  Primitive  church*     Part  i.  Chap.  vi. 
Ubid, 


LETTlEfl  Vm.  125 

herein  were  unknown,  which  was  observed  by  the 
Pagans,  who  objected  to  the  christians  the  secrecy  of 
their  mysteries;  which  charge  Tertullian  does  not 
deny  but  confessing  it,  answers,  that,  that  was  the 
very  nature  of  mysteries  to  be  concealed,  as  Ceres's 
were  in  Samothracia."*  tt  The  elements  being 
blessed,  the  Deacons  give  to  every  one  present  of  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine."t  This  was  the  prac- 
tice in  Samaria  and  other  countries,  in  the  days  of 
Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  150.  Now  the  question  is 
were  the  children  put  out  as  often  as  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  administered,  that  is,  at  least  every  first 
day  of  the  week,  with  the  unbelieving,  the  unbap- 
tized  and  profane,  or  were  they  included  wiih 
their  parents,  and  with  them  called  faithfuls  ?  Were 
they  kept  ignorant  of  the  mysteries  of  the  church  in 
which  they  were  brought  up,  and  received  the 
Lord's  nurture  and  admonition?  I  answer  no4  The 
children  always  composed  with  their  parents  the 
public  worshipping  assembly  and  were  called  faith' 
fuls — they  were  not  treated  as  aliens  and  sepera- 
ted,  at  once  from  their  parents,  and  the  house  of 
God.  This  would  have  been  so  contrary  to  the 
law  of  nature,  and  all  former  practice  that  it  would 
have  required  nothing  short  of  an  imperative,  di- 
vine injunction.  Pliny  writing  to  the  Emperor 
Trajan,  A.  D.  106,  respecting  the  christians  in  By- 

*  King's  Brim,  Church.     Part  ii.  Chap.  vi. 
Mbid.         \WallHis.  Inf.  Bap.  Part  ii.-Cbap.  9, 
and  Part  i.  Chap.  1 2  and  1 5. 
L* 


ne  LETTER  VIII. 

thinia,  and  enquiring  how  the  persecuting  and 
bloody  edict  was  to  be  executed  against  them ;  says, 
^  that  all  ranks  and  ages,  and  even  of^both  sexes 
would  be  involved ;"  and  asks,  "  whether  no  distinc- 
tion was  to  be  made  between  the  young  and  the 
adult."  He  says  that  according  to  his  informa- 
tion, "  the  whole  of  their  guilt,  or  their  error  was. 
that  they  met  on  a  certain  stated  day,  before  it  was 
light,  and  addressed  themselves  in  a  form  of  prayer 
to  Christ,  as  to  some  God,  binding  themselves  by  a 
solemn  oath,  &c.  after  which  it  was  their  custom  to 
separate  and  then  re-assemble,  to  eat  in  common-  a 
harmless  meal."  The  young  and  adult — all  ranks 
and  ages  and  even  of  both  sexes  were  liable  to  fall 
under  the  persecutions  prescribed ;  and  they  eat  in 
common  a  harmless  meal,  when  assembled  together. 
Now  if  this  was  not  the  harmless  meal  that  distin- 
guished them  as  Christians— if  it  was  not  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  if  the  young  as  well  as  the  adult  wcrt 
not  found  there,  how,  could  they  as  christians  be  in 
danger?  In  A.  D.  210,  "  Cecilius,  the  heathen 
interlocutor  says— the  christians  come  together  or 
an  appointed  day  with  all  their  children,  their  sisters 
and  mothers:  persons  of  each  sex,  and  of  every 
condition.  After  feeding  plentifully,  the  lights  are 
put  out."*  It  is  merely  necessary  to  remark  thar 
this  enemy  of  the  christians,  in  the  first  sentence* 
stated  what  was  the  truth,  and  in  the  second  adds 
what  was  false  for  the  sake  of  calumniating.  Hac 
* Evidences  on  Baptism,  Letter  iv.  107. 


LETTER  VIII.  127 

ihe  first  been  false,  the  calumny  would  have  had  no 
ostensible  foundation  to  support  it.  Christians  did 
come  together  on  the  appointed  day,  that  is,  the 
Lord?s  day,  to  keep  the  feast  commemorative  of  his 
death.  And  this  heathen  had  seen  them  go  with 
ail  their  children;  but  as  none  except  the  initiated 
could  be  present  at  the  celebration  he  knew  nothing 
about  the  manner  they  conducted  on  the  occasion., 
and  thence  forged  his  calumny. 

Again,  that  little  children  composed  in  part  the 
public  religious  assemblies  of  the  early  christians 
and  of  course  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper-  with 
their  parents,  appears  from  the  following  facts  star 
ted  by  good  authority.  Previous  to  baptism  some 
such  creed  as  this  was  proposed  to  the  candidate, 
and  his  assent  required;  viz:  w  Whether  he  believed 
m  God  the  father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  remission  of 
nns  and  eternal  life  through  the  church!  In  later 
times  this  creed  was  enlarged  and  called  the  Apos- 
tles creed.  For  a  long  time,  however,  it  was  not 
committed  to  writing,  and  proposed  in  various 
words,  in  different  churches.  Christian  writers  of 
the  third,  fourth  and  fifth  century  call  it,  the  rule  of 
the  faith  and  truth — the  gift  of  salvation — the  faith  of 
the  Catholic  Sacrament — the  seal  of  our  heart,  and  a 
military  sacrament — the  illumination  of  the  soul,  the 
perfection  of  believers — the  entrance  into  life — the  gate 
of  salvation — the  covenant  of  life— the  plea  of  salvation, 
■md  the  indissoluble  sacrament  of  faith  between  God  and 
\is.    Jerome  of  the  fifth  century  informs  us   that? 


128  LETTER  VIII. 

this  symbol  of  our  faith  and  hope  delivered  by  the  Ajm- 
tles  teas  not  written  in  paper  and  ink,  but  in  the  fleshly- 
tables  of  the  heart.  And  Petrus  Chrysologus  of  the 
same  century,  frequently  exhorts  his  hearers,  to  pre- 
serve this  gift  in  the  most  inward  recesses  of  their  heart*, 
not  to  permit  vile  paper  to  depreciate  this  precious  gift,  or 
black  ink  to  darken  this  mystery  of  light."*  "This 
creed  was  studiously  concealed  from  the  pagan 
world  and  not  revealed  to  the  Catechumens  till  just 
before  their  baptism,  or  initiation  in  the  christian 
mysteries,  when  it  was  delivered  unto  them,  as  that 
secret  note,  mark,  or  token  by  which  the  faithful,  in 
all  parts  of  the  world  should  interchangeably  know 
and  be  known."!  But  whilst  the  creed  was  thus 
kept  secret  from  the  world,  and  even  the  Catechu- 
mens, it  was  not  so  with  respect  to  the  children  of 
believers.  "It  was  handed  down  from  father  to 
son.'*J  Being  so  highly  prized,  christian  parents 
would  necessarily  include  it  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord,  which  they  were  bound  to 
give  their  children.  But  this  creed  was  the  secret 
-note  mark,  or  token  by  which  the  faithful  were  dis- 
tinguished and  known.  It  was  the  sign  of  church 
membership,  and  the  passport  to  all  church  privile- 
ges. It  was  one  of  the  holy  mysteries  of  the  church — 
and  the  gift  of  salvation.  Now  as  children  had  it 
communicated  to  them  by  their  christian  parents 
they  were  reckoned  among  the  faithful  and  were 

*King'*s  His.  of  the  Apostles  creed,  Cap.  i. 
\1bi£    tKing's  Prim.  Church,  Part  iu  Chap.  3# 


LETTER  VIII,  129 

I  slrat  out  with  the  world  and  the  Catechumens 
when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  administered.  But  if 
they  were  permitted  to  he  present  they  partook; 
for  as  already  shown,  none  were  permitted  to  he 
present  but  the  communicants. 

The  history  of  infant  communion,  which  prevailed 
in  the  church  at  an  early  period,  affords  strong 
proof  that  the  communion  of  little  children  came 
down  from  the  Apostles.  Ecclesiastical  historians 
differ  respecting  the  period  when  infant  cetmminimi 
in  the  Lord?s  Supper  became  generally  prevalent. 
Mosheim,  and  Dr.  Samuel  Miller  assert,  that  it 
prevailed  in  the  second  century,  but  do  not  deter- 
mine to  what  extent.*  Spanhemins,  and  Wall  deny- 
that  it  was  practiced  so  soon — the  first,  grants  that 
it  was  introduced  in  the  third  century:!  and  the 
latter,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth.;  The  proba- 
ble fact  appears  to  be  this,  that  infant  communion, 
like  superstition,  in  every  form,  was  gradually  in- 
introduced — that  in  a  few  churches  it  might  have 
been  practiced  in  the  end  of  the  second  century — 
that  it  spread  in  the  third,  and  was  very  general  and 
openly  pled  for  and  defended  in  the  fourth,  and 
fifth.  Dr.  Miller  admitting  the  fact  that  the  cor- 
ruption existed  in  the  second  century,  considers  it 
unaccountable.  He  says,  "  now  that  this  practice 
had  no  foundation  either  in  scripture   or  Apostolic. 

Mosheim  Eccl.  His.  Cent.  ii.  and  Dr.  Millers  Let- 
ters, i.  Series  Let.  8.  \Samma  His.  Eccl.  Cent. 
*i.and  iii.          \Hh.  of  Inf.  Bap.  Part.  ii.  chap 


*3G  LETTER  VIIK 

example  is  conceded  by  the  whole  christian  worlds 
How  then  shall  we  account  for  its  introduction  and 
general  adoption  in  the  church?"  To  clear  this 
part  of  church  history  of  difficulty  the  following  re- 
marks are  offered ;  and  they  will  I  hope  satisfactor- 
ily evince,  that  although  infant  communion  was  a 
superstitious  innovation  made  in  the  church  at  an~ 
early  period,  yet  the  communion  of  lutie  children, 
from  three  years  and  upwards,  did  prevail  in  all  the 
churches,  and  was  no  superstitious  innovotion. 

First,  the  modern  writers,  both  in  theology,  and 
ecclesiastical  history  appear  never  to  have  ascer- 
tained, and  clearly  defined  what  infancy  is — how 
far  it  extends,  and  what  is  the  character,  standing 
and  rights  of  children  in  the  church  of  God,  when 
infancy  terminates.  Hence  in  their  writings,  in- 
fants, little  children  and  youth  are  confounded  and 
grouped  together  and  thus  what  in  ancient  history 
was  said  of  one  of  these  classes,  is  attributed  to  an- 
other, or  to  all  of  them.  If  the  moderns  would  first 
inform  us  that  infancy  among  the  Jews  extended  to 
three  full  years,  and  among  the  Greeks  to  four*-— 
that  then  the  age  of  little  ones  commenced,  and  ter- 
minated somewhere  about  thirteen  or  fourteen ;  and 
then  in  their  subsequent  references  to  these  various 
classes  observe  the  distinction,  much  obscurity  would 
be  obviated,  and  many  unaccountables  would  be  ea- 
sily accountable.  That  the  early  christian  writers 
observed  the  "above  distinction,  and  which  in  a  for- 
mer letter  was  shown  to  exist  in  the  holy  scripture 


LETTER  VIII.  rsl 

will  appear  by  an  extract  from  Ireneus  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  in  France,  in  the  second  century,  and  who 
was  the  disciple  of  Poly  carp  the  disciple  of  the  Apos- 
tle John.  Speaking  of  Christ,  he  says,  "therefore 
as  he  was  a  master  he  had  also  the  age  of  a  master. 
Not  disdaining,  nor  going  in  a  way  above  human 
nature,  nor  breaking  in  his  own  person,  the  law 
which  he  had  set  for  mankind  5  but  sanctifying  eve- 
ry several  age  by  the  likeness  that  it  has  to  him; 
for  he  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself — all  I 
mean  who  by  him  are  regenerated  (\>r  baptized) 
unto  God — infants,  and  little  ones  and  boys  and  youths 
and  elder  persons;  for  infants  being  made  an  infant 
sanctifying  infants.  To  little  ones  he  was  made  a 
little  one,  santifying  those  of  that  age,  and  also  giv- 
ing them  an  example  of  Godliness,  justice  and  du- 
tifulness ; — to  youths,  he  was  a  youth,  &C.5**  Poly- 
carp  had  this  classification,  no  doubt,  from  the  A- 
postle  John,  as  it  has  been  noticed  in  substance  in 
the  second  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle.  Ireneus  had 
it  from  Polycarp  his  master.  And  let  it  be  noted 
that  he  says  Christ  became  a  little  one,  giving  them 
of  this  age  an  example  of  Godliness,  &c.  Let  us 
now  advert  to  the  declarations  of  some  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers.  King  says,  that,  in  the  time  of  Cyprian, 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  which  was  about  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  "  it  was  usual   for  children 

*  Wall.  His.  Inf.  Bap.  Part  i.  Chap.  3. 
In  the  above  I  have  translated,  pueros  boys,  different 
from- Mr*  Wall  who  translates  it  children. 


132  LETTER  VHI. 

/nnd  sucking  infants  to  receive  the  sacrament."* 
Here  children  and  infants  are  both  mentioned. 
Wall  denies  that  there  is  any  proof  that  mere  in- 
fants partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  days  of 
Cyprian,  but  says,  that  children  of  four  or  five 
pears  did  partake  of  it  in  the  church  of  Carthage, 
and  in  giving  what  he  considered  most  probable  on 
the  whole  matter  from  all  that  he  could  ascertain, 
he  says, 

"  1.  That  in  Cyprians  time  the  people  of  the 
church  of  Carthage  did  often  times  bring  their 
children  younger  than  ordinary  to  the  communion. 

"  2.  That  in  St.  Austin  and  Innocent's  time, 
(fourth  and  fifth  century)  it  was  in  the  western  parts 
given  to  mere  infants,  and  that  this  continued  from 
that  time  about  600  years. 

•;  3.  That  sometime  during  thi?  space  of  GOO 
years,  the  Greek  churchy  which  was  then  low  in  the 
world,  took  this  custom  of  the  Latin  church,  which 
was  more  flourishing. 

"  4.  That  the  Roman  church  about  the  year  1000 
entertaining  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  let 
fall  the  custom  of  giving  the  holy  elements  to  in- 
fants, and  the  other  western  churches  mostly  follow- 
ing their  example,  did  the  like,  upon  the  said  ac- 
count; but  that  the  Greeks  not  having  the  said  doc- 
trine, continued,  and  do  still  continue  the  custom  of 
communicating  infants."  Again  he  says,  "  that  it 
is  not  time,  that  all  christians  are  satisfied  that  the 

"Prim.  Church.     Partii.  Chap.  6. 


BETTER  VIII. 

indents  did  ill  in  giving  infants  the  Eucharist;  for 
nearly  half  the  christians  in  the  world  do  still  con- 
tinue that  practice.  The  Greek  church,  the  Arme- 
nians, the  Maronites,  the  Cophti,  the  Abassens  and 
the  Muscovites — and  fqr  ought  I  know  do  all  I 
rest  of  the  eastern  christians.*  If  Wall  he  correct, 
then  it  was  not  infant  communion,  hut  the  commun- 
ion of  little  children,  as  young  as  four  or  five  years, 
that  prevailed  in  Carthage,  in  Cyprian's  time.    And 

-  ichhave  been  incorrectly  termed  infants,  by  ma- 
ny, i;,   u  the  same  error,  was  called 
Li  the  fourth  and  fifth  century, 
when  infant  communion  did   prevail,  ai.d  its  advo- 
cates, declared  that  it  came  down  from  the  Apos-* 
lave  alluded  to  the  communion  of 

le  ones  and  confounded  the  two  together.  Bat 
as  before  remarked,  infant  communion  might  have 
been  practiced  in  some  few  churches  as  early  as 
latter  part  of  the  second  century,  or  beginning 
of  the  third,  and  Wall,  nevertheless,  be  correct 
with  respect  to  its  general  prevalence,  and  pub- 
lic defence.  If  we  advert  to  the  glowing  figura- 
tive language  of  Ignatius  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  respecting  the  bread  in  the  Lorn"? 
Supper;  and  to  the  construction  and  application  of 
John  vi.  53-58,  made  by  the  christian  writers  of 
t  his  century:  and  if  we  also  admit  that  it  had  been 
.he  custom  for  little  children  to  commune,  with  them 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  infant  commun- 

*H&.  Inf.  Bap.  Part.  ii.  Chap.  9. 
M 


134  LETTER  VIII. 

ion  in  some  churches  falling  into  superstition  in  tht 
beginning  of  the  third  centuiy.  But  if  none  under 
fourteen,  or  fifteen,  or  the  age,  which  we  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  considering,  the  age  of  discretion,  had 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Ta- 
ble among  the  Jews,  the  Apostolic  christians,  and 
those  succeeding,  I  agree  with  Dr.  Miller,  that  the 
prevalence  of  infant  communion  in  the  second,  third, 
or  even  the  fourth  centur}*  is  unaccountable.  But 
in- view  of  the  facts  just  stated,  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  the  case.  So  soon  as  there  was  a  life-giving  vir- 
tue attributed,  by  the  doctors  of  the  church,  to  the 
sacred  elements,  and  their  participation  made  es- 
sential to  salvation,  it  was  very  easy  and  natural  to 
pass  on  from  the  little  ones  of  three  or  four  years,  to 
infants.  A  similar  process  had  been  made  among 
the  Jews  respecting  infant  communion  in  the  passo- 
ver,  when  they  gave  place  to  superstition  and  the 
commandments  of  men.  But  to  pass  from  youth  of 
fourteen  to  infants,  in  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  in  the  second  or  third  century,  is 
truly  unaccountable.  It  would  have  been  so  great 
a  stride,  so  wonderful  and  daring  an  innovation, 
that  it  would  have  agitated  the  whole  christian 
church,  and  produced  a  contention  as  memorable 
as  that  which  arose  respecting  the  observance  of 
Easter. 

These  remarks  make  the  several  ecclesiastical 
historians  intelligible;  and  enable  us  to  see  how 
their  apparent  different  statements  respecting  ir^ 


LETTER  VIII.  135 

font  communion,  arc  not  really  contradictory,  and 
that  the  communion  of  little  ones  preceded,  and 
was  by  some  confounded  with  it.  This,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  other  evidence  advanced  from 
Ignatius  and  church  history,  prove  to  my  mind  very 
satisfactorily,  that  the  church  admitted  little  chil- 
dren to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  from  the  days 
of  the  Apostles  until  that  communion  was  entirely 
blended  with  infant  communion  in  the  prevalence 
of  superstition.  From  that  period  to  this  the 
distinction  has  been  lost.  Infants,  little  ones,  and 
youth  are  all  classed  together. 

After  the  third  or  fourth  century,  the  church's 
practice  and  authority  with  regard  to  almost  any 
subject,  are  of  very  little  weight  with  protestants. 
An  historical  sketch,  however,  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per down  to  our  own  times  is  necessary  to  remove 
some  diiilculties,  and  meet  some  objections  that  may 
be  urged  against  the  views  which  I  have  been  en- 
deavoring to  establish. 

From  the  second  century,  pompous  appendages 
and  rites  were  thrown  around  the  church  and  ordi- 
nances of  God.  This  was  particularly  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  you  may  see  by 
consulting  ?tIosheim,  or  almost  any  other  ecclesi- 
astical historian.  Its  importance,  its  saving  virtue 
and  holy  nature  were  the  themes  of  the  most  glow- 
nthusiastic  acclamation.  So  much  sane-, 
tity  and  terror  wot-  thrown  around  it  in  the  days 


136  LETTER  VIH. 

of  Ambrose.  Chrysostom,  and  Augustin,*'  that  peo- 
ple, the  members  of  the  church  began  to  abstain 
from  communing.  They  would  sometimes  enter 
the  church,  hear  the  sermon,  and  then  retire,  which 
practice  was  severely  censured  by  the  above  nam- 
ed Fathers.!  Decrees  of  councils  were  passed  to 
compel  them  to  commune,  at  least  once  a  year. 
This  at  length  became  the  common  practice.  Oth- 
er reasons  are  given  by  Brown  of  Haddington,  in 
his  apology  for  the  more  frequent  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  why  the  practice  of  communing  so 
seldom  became  prevalent  in  the  fourth  century,  and 
no  doubt  some  of  them  had  their  influence;  but  it 
appears  from  Chrysostom,  as  quoted  by  Calvin, 
that  the  plea  of  the  people  was,  that  they  were  not 
prepared.  The  ceremonies  were  numerous — no- 
tions, which  terminated  in  transubstantiation,  were 
prevailing,  the  danger  of  eating  and  drinking  judg- 
or  as  we  have  it  translated,  damnation,  was 
proclaimed  i:1  dreadful  tones — 

ce,  the 
-eldci  •  conscien- 

ces condemned  and  lis  snper^fr 

/  and  :  lavish  fear  for  the 
I  . .  ad  ;.!.<!    • 
.   and  blo<  •!  of  Christ,  and  (hen 
n  peo- 

,  J  odk  h . 
ap.   17.  ai  1  ■  . 


LETTER  VIII.  13? 

pie ;  and  the  clergy  alone  were  considered  sufficient- 
ly holy  to  partake  of  the  sacred  symbols.  Monkery 
in  the  dark  ages  had  extirpated  nearly  all  the  so- 
cial virtues.  All  the  tine  and  tender  feelings  of  the 
ge  state — all  the  sympathies  and  silken 
.ween  husband  and  wife,  father  and  children 
were  sacrificed  to  Moloch;  and  thus  the  Monks? 
were  preapared,  butchers  of  the  man  of  sin, 

to  drive  the  i.i  le  childrei  .  info  ts  and  all  from  the 
Lord.      B   liness,  and  a  professed  re- 
sacred  elen  ■    re   the  pretexts  for 

this  unnatural.  e  d. 

At  whaj  of  the  church  were 

opened  for  I  Ion  of  mere  spectators  of  the 

celebration  of  Vipper,  I  have  not  been 

able  to  ascertain.  We  may,  however,  reasonably 
conclude,  that  when  i,  became  customary  for  mem- 
bers of  the  church  to  be  mere  spectators,  and  when 
the  great  men  of  the  world  became  the  patrons  of 
Christianity,  as  was  the  case  in  the  days  of  Constan- 
tine,  some  would  be  gratified  with  beholding  the 
mysteries,  without  making  a  profession,  and  receiv- 
ing baptism.  The  doors  once  opened  could  not  be 
easily  closed.  And  when  the  church  became  en- 
tirely corrupt,  when  the  sacred  elements  were  car- 
ried about  for  the  adoration  of  the  people,  and  the 
world  and  wicked  men  obtained  the  ascendancy, 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  separating,  distinguishing 
line,  constituted  by  the    Lord's  Supper,  between 


138  TTER  VIII. 

\c  of  Gcd  and    the  rest  oi 
the  * 

Th  •  :    .  til  century  restor- 

h   :  •-..  .'  .  and  ape 
v  and   abominations 
rated  and  defiled    the   churc) 
God.     The  bread    and  the  wine   were  restored  to 
laity,   in  the  lord's  Supper;  but  i]  I  d  Ut- 

ile children  being  classed  together  and  both  cor 
ered  equally  unfit, or  incompetent  to  partake  wor- 
thily of    that  holy    ordinance,    were    left   where 
they   had  been  put   by  the    saintly  agents  of  the 
man    of  sin.     Ic   appears  thai  some   plead  for  tl  e 
restoration  of  infants,  but  were  unsuccessful,  so  iir 
as  I   have  been   able  to  learn,  in   the   reformed 
chare  he?.!     Had  they  examined  the  scriptures  and 
le   the  proper  distinction  between  infants,  and 
little  children,  and  advocated  the  cause  of  the  lat- 
ter,   leaving  the  former  to  commune  in  the  per- 
of  their  mothers,  there  'would,  in  all  probabili- 
ty, have  been  no  occasion,  or  necessity  for  writing 
present  letters. 
With  respect  to  the  qualifications  of  those  admit- 
ted to  the  church  and  her  distinguishing  privileges, 
oe  remarks  are  necessary.     The  practice  of  the 

*  In  1548    a  denunciation  was  to  be  pronounced  in 
the  churches  of  England,  and  all  who  had  not  repent- 
ed were  required  to  withdraw,  lest  the  Devil  should  en- 
ter into  than  as  he  aid   into    Judas.      Aral's  His.  Pir- 
.:,  Chap.  2.     \VdiCs  Econ.  Lered's  Supper. 


LETTER  VIII.  139 

to  have  been  first  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  that  is,  deliver  their  testimony  fully  and 
clearly,  respecting  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  way  of  ob* 
taining  salvation  through  him;  and  if  any  professed 
to  believe  the  testimony,  and  a  willingness  to  take 
him  for  their  Saviour  and  ruler,  they  were  baptized, 
and  in  due  time  organised  into  a  church,  for 
enjoyment  of  all  privileges.  Thus  a  p'dfession  of 
faith  and  obedience  to  Christ,  was  all  that  was 
quired  for  admission  into  the  church,  and  a  parti- 
cipation of  all  privileges.  There  was  no  doi 
some  difference  made  between  the  Jewish  converts 
who  had  been  instructed  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  heathen  who  had  every  thirg  respecting  the 
true  God  and  his  worship  to  learn:  yet  the  proces? 
was  short,  and  the  qualification  for  membership,  a 
simple  profession  of  faith  ad  obedience.  When 
superstition  began  to  prevail,  and  ^al  godliness 
declined — when  firms,  instead  of  substance,  and  a 
technical,  philosophical  theology,  gradually  sup- 
planted the  simple  religion  of  the  Bible,  it  became 
much  more  difficult  to  get  into  the  church,  and  to  a 
participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Catechu- 
mens had  to  pass  through  a  long  process,  of  instruc- 
tion and  discipline,  and  at  last  entered  with  fasting 
and  many  ceremonies  of  men's  invention.*  Penitents, 
that  is,  those  who  had  apostatized  or  fallen  from 
their  profession  of  Christianity,  could  not  be  restor- 
ed without  a  lo!  g  series  of  penance  and  mortiiica- 
*  Kings  Prim,  Church. 


140  LETTER  Vllf. 

lion.  Thus  things  went  on  until  superstitious  riteh 
and  ceremonies — austere  forms,  Jewish,  or  pagan 
lustrations,  &c.  Szc.  drove  all  true  religion  from  the 
church  ;  and  at  last  no  quail':  :a;tion  short  of  priestly 
y-  ler  ,  could  obtain  the  bread  and  the  wine  in  the 
Lord's  Sapper. 

n   what  -..  law  and  custom  a- 

•  ;  to  their  children  par- 
lirteen  they  partook 
:h  their  pare  its.  Being  circumcised  and  con- 
taminated with  no  ceremonial,  or  legal  uocleaness 
they  received  the  sacred  symbols  of  the  Lord's  Ta- 
nk, in  the  passover,  upon  the  responsibility  of  their 
natural  guardians.  In  other  words,  their  parents, 
if  the  expression  he  proper,  qualified  for  them.  But 
when  thirteen  years  old,  the  father  resigned  his 
trust  and  responsibility,  and  the  education  they  had 
received,  and  the  maturity  to  which  they  had  arriv- 
ed, were  the  qualifications  which  were  supposed 
necessary  to  constitute  them  suitable  communi- 
cants in  the  passover,  as  personally  responsible 
moral  agents,  and  members  of  the  church.  If 
afterwards  they  should,  in  any  thing,  act  un- 
worthily, or  violate  the  laws  of  God's  house  they 
were  subject  to  discipline.  Now,  although  I  can 
find  no  explicit  authority,  to  show  that  the  same 
law  and  custom  prevailed  in  the  christian  church, 
yet  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  a  ceremony 
which  is  early  noticed,  and  has  in  later  tim^s  been 
called  confirmation,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 


LETTER  YIII.  141 

such  was  the  fact.  Imposition  of  hands  had  hcen 
customary  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  as  a  form  of 
setting  apart  to  the  enjoyment  of  blessings,  and  of 
office;  and  by  it,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  was  given.  Paul  speaks  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  laying  on  of  hands;*  and  in  the  early  days  of  the 
christian  church  it  was  used  after  baptism;  and  by 
some  called  absolution  and  consummation.  The  hands 
were  imposed,  aiid  prayer  at  the  same  time  offered, 
for  the  communication  of  the  holy  spirit,  who  con- 
summated the  work  of  the  souls  conversion  unto 
God.  Chrism,  or  annointing  with  oil  was  at  the 
same  time  used  by  some,  and  in  process  of  time  be- 
came common,  both  in  baptism,  and  the  laying  on  of 
hands. t  According  to  this  signification  and  use  of 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  it  might  very  naturally  be  ap- 
plied to  the  children  of  the  church,  when  they  passed 
from  the  period  of  childhood,  to  that  of  youth,  and 
were  considered  capable  of  choosing  and  acting  for 
themselves  in  the  matters  of  religion.  They  were 
1  recognized  and  set  apart  upon  their  own  per- 
sonal responsibility,  to  the  discharge  of  the  duties, 
and  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges  of  church  mem- 
bers. Although  there  be  not  very  clear  authority 
fortius,  yet  it  is  the  only  foundation  which  Papists 
have  for  their  sacrament  of  confirmation ;  and  the 
Episcopaieans  •.  who  do  not  call  it  a  sacrament,  but 

*Heb*    vi.   2.      '(King's    Prim.    Church.     Part   ii. 
Chap.  5  and  Dr.  Iky'-  Lectures.     Book  iv.  Art.  25, 

Sec,  3. 


U2  LETTER  VIII. 

an  ordinance,  or  rite,  which  youth  are  to  secure, 
before  they  receive  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  for- 
mer say,  ;i  that  confirmation  is  not  to  be  given  till 
young  persons  have  the  use  of  their  reason;  and 
therefore  it  must  be  deferred  till  they  are  eleven 
years  old,  or  however  till  they  are  six.''  The  lat- 
ter, that  they  should  not  be  confirmed  under  four- 
teen.* The  reformed  French  church  fixed  the 
communion  of  young  persons  at  above  twelve  years 
of  age. t  This,  or  fourteen  is  generally  coi  sidered 
by  all  protestants,  as  the  period  at  which  they  ar- 
rive at  the  years  of  discretion,  and  when  they  ou^ht 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  qualifica- 
tions which  they  have  required  have  varied  in  dif- 
ferent churches,  and  sometimes  in  the  same  church. 
In  the  English  church,  in  the  days  of  Edward  VI. 
it  was  enjoined  upon  church  officers;  "  that,  they 
examine  such  who  come  to  confession,  whether 
they  can  recite  the  Pater-noster,  (the  Lord"?  prayer.) 
creed,  and  ten  commandments  in  English  before  they 
receive  the  sacrament  of  the  Altar,  else  they  ought 
not  to  come  to  God's  board. '"I  The  reformation 
hen,  far  progressed,  from  popery,  in  the 
h  church ;  but  to  this  day  little  more  is  requir- 
ed according  to  the  liturgy  and  form  of  con 
It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  in  all  the  re- 
formed churches  there  was  what  they  termed  the 
power  of  the  Keys;  and  (lie  Key  of  doctrine  a?  d  the 
*  See  Hey  as  just  cited.  \Stc:':i:rfs  Coh  Look  ii. 
Tit.  4.     \MeaPsHis.  Puri.  2.  a  note. 


LETTER  VIIL  143 

Key  of  discipline.     In  the  use  of  the  Key  of  doctrine, 
they  would  declare  who  in  God's  sight,  and  accor- 
ding to  his  word  were  fit  and  worthy  communicants, 
and  seldom  fail  to  pronounce  damnation  on  those 
who  partook  unworthily.     But  in  the  exercise  of 
the  Key  of  discipline,  they  debarred  none,  but  those 
who  in  the  sight,  and  judgment  of  men  were  grossly 
scandalous  or  ignorant,  and    admitted   all  upon  a 
credible  profession  of  their   faith  in     Christ,      And 
when  the  baptized  children  of  the  church  had  ar- 
rived at  somewhere  about  twehre  or  fourteen  years 
of  age;  and    could   repeat   the  Lord's  Prayer,  the 
Apostle's  Creed,  the  ten  commandments,  and  some 
little  church  catechism,  they  were  considered  qual- 
ified for  the  participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
accordingly  by  the  Key  of  discipline  were   admit- 
ted.    Such   were   the  requisitions,   and  such    the 
practice  of  the  reformed  churches,  until  the  rise  of 
the  Independents,  about  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.     From  that  period,  the  views  and 
practice  have  varied  in  different  churches,  respec- 
ting the  qualifications  which  are  to  entitle  persons, 
in  the  judgment  of  church  officers,  to  a  seat  at  the 
Lord's   Table.     In  the    days  of  Richard    Baxter, 
there  was    much    controversy    respecting    church 
membership  and  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,     He  blamed  the  Episcopaleans  for  requir- 
ing too  little,  and  the  Independents  for  requiring  too 
much.     Tie  former  pursued  the  course  before  sta- 
ted, the  latter  required   what  some  call  an  expe* 


144  LETTER  VIII. 

rience.  That  is,  applicants  must  give  the  time, 
place  and  manner  of  their  conversion.  They  must 
not  only  profess  faith  and  obedience  to  the  Saviour, 
but  they  must  profess  a  hope  that  they  had  been 
changed  in  heart,  and  give  the  particular  reasons  of 
that  hope.*  This  Baxter  considered  tyrannical  and 
erroneous,  and  one  cause  of  the  contentions  and  di- 
visions in  his  day.  It,  in  part,  laid  the  axe  to  the 
root  of  church  union  and  communion.  Every  par- 
ticular church  must,  in  consistently  carrying  out 
tins  principle,  deny  communion  to  all  members, 
from  other  churches,  whose  views  and  practice 
were  different.  They  must  have  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  all  who  would  commune  with  them  were 
truly  regenerated;  and  for  this  they  could  seldom 
rely  upon  the  judment  and  veracity  of  others.  Con- 
tention, harsh  judging  and  division  must  be  the 
consequence.  Baxter  says,  that  he  examined  the 
question  of  a  persons  admission  to  communion  more 
particularly  than  any  other  subject,  and  he  could 
rest  on  no  other  ground  than  this,  u  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  true  faith  and  repentance,'''  And  further 
says,  "  the  Independents  bring  in  tyranny  and  con- 
fusion, whilst  they  will  take  no  profession  as  credi- 
ble, which  hath  not  more  to  make  it  credible  than 
God  and  charity  require;  and  that  every  man's 

*Savoy  Con.  Faith.  Inst,  and  order.  Isaac  Chan- 
cers Divine  Inst,  of  Cong.  Ch.  Chap.  xii.  Baxter's 
Life.  Parrti.  p.  113,  143.  Appendix  No.  4,  Pan e 
79. 


LETTER  VIII.  145 

Word  is  to  be  taken,  as  the  credible  profession  of  his 
own  mind,  unless  he  forfeit  the  credit  of  his  word 
by  gross  ignorance  of  the  matter  professed,  or  by 
a  contrary  profession  or  by  an  inconsistent  life.'- 
Again,  "to  exclude  any  from  communion  that  are 
baptized,  and  at  age  have  owned  their  Christiani- 
ty, and  are  not  proved  by  sufficient  witnesses  to 
have  nullified  that  profession  by  apostasy,  heresy, 
or  a  wicked  or  scandalous  life,  is  church  tyranny 
and  injustice,  of  which  all  are  guilty  that  do  it  or 
desire  it."'*  The  Westminster  divines  held  that 
all  who  professed  the  true  religion  were  members  of 
the  church,  and  none  such  were  to  be  debarred 
from  the  Lord's  table  except  those  who  were  igno- 
rant and  scandalous.!  The  church  of  Scotland 
-ays,  w  Those  that  are  to  be  admitted  to  this  sacra- 
ment must  be  found  to  have  a  competent  knowledge 
of  the  fundamentals  of  the  christian  religion,  and 
to  be  of  such  an  inoffensive  walk  and  conversation, 
both  towards  God  and  their  neighbours  that  they 
are  not  known  to  be  guilty  of  any  scandal  that  mer- 
iteth  church  censure."|  I  am  speaking  of  the 
exercise  of  the  key  of  discipline.  The  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Catechisms  formed  by  the  Westmin- 
ster divines,  and  received  by  the  Church  cf  Scot- 
land, are  very  full  and  particular,  respecting  those 
graces,  dispositions  aud  spiritual  exercises  required 

*  Baxter's  Life  as  before  cited,  t  Con.  Faith.  Chap, 
xxv.  2.  8l  xxvi.  2.  Larger  Cat.  Ques.  173.  \Stem- 
-arts  Collections  Tit.  4. 

N 


146  LETTER  VIII. 

by  the  heart  searching  God,  of  those  who  approach 
him  at  the  Table  of  the  Lord.  It  appears  that  the 
church  of  Scotland  and  many  others  held  the  mid- 
dle ground  between  the  Episcopaleans  and  Inde- 
pendents ;  but  they  too  generally  appear  to  have 
considered  the  Lord's  nurture  and  admonition,  as  con- 
sisting in  a  knowledge  of  the  Lord's  prayer — the 
Apostle's  creed,  the  ten  commandments,  and  the 
formularies  of  the  church.  The  Bible  was  not  dis- 
carded, or  altogether  neglected  in  the  religious  ed- 
ucation of  youth,  but  it  gave  not  the  length  and 
breadth,  the  height,  and  depth  of  that  education, 
and  was  not  the  standard  of  the  religion  required 
for  admission  to  the  Table  of  the  Lord.  The  Bi- 
ble epitomized,  or  reduced  to  brief ybrms  and  sum- 
maries, naturally  produced  a  formal  and  sinnmary 
religion.  This  was  lamentably  the  case  in  the  best 
of  the  reformed  churches,  and  in  some,  the  spirit, 
life  and  power  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible  seldom 
appear.  And  when  we  consider,  how  prone  men 
are  to  extreme  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  the 
Independents  took  the  course,  so  severely  censured 
by  the  pious  and  judicious  Richard  Baxter. 

In  the.  last  century  the  discordant  views,  and 
practice  of  the  preceding  one  continued ;  and  much 
furious  controversy  prevailed.  Infnnt  communion 
was  agitated.  A  Mr.  Pierce  and  Dr.  Dodridge 
are  mentioned  among  the  disputants.*  Mr. 
Charles  Buck,  who  gives  a  short  notice  of  this  con- 

Buck's  Theo.  Diet.  Article,  Infant  community. 


LETTER  VIII.  147 

1 1 overs),  is  of  opinion  that  although  infant  com- 
munion cannot  be  sustained,  yet  if  children  were 
properly  instructed  they  might  commune  very 
young. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Rev.  George  Whitfield 
and  John  Wesley  were  instrumental  in  producing 
a  powerful  religious  excitement  through  the  King- 
dom of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  Cold- 
ness and  formality  appear  to  have  generally  over- 
spread the  churches,  and  a  revival  of  religion  was 
greatly  needed.  In  New  England,  and  in  some 
other  places  a  revival  was  enjoyed ;  and  one  con- 
sequence was,  that  many  ran  to  the  extreme  of  en- 
thusiasm, and  others  to  the  most  furious  opposi- 
tion. "Old  side  and  new  side — Schemers — en- 
thusiasts, new  lights,"  and  other  not  very  flatter- 
ing appellations,  tradition  informs  us,  were  then 
in  common  use.  The  new  side,  who  advocated  the 
revival  were  for  admitting  none  to  the  communion 
but  those  who  could  narrate  great  experiences,  and 
give  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  were  born 
again.  This  the  old  side  termed  enthusiasm,  and 
stood  firmly  for  their  former  terms  of  communion. 
viz:  a  recitation  of  the  Lord's  prayer — the  apos- 
tle's creed  and  ten  commandments,  &e.  or  by  a  sim- 
ple, cold  profession  of  faith  in  the  scriptures,  and 
common  Christianity.  The  judicious  reader  will 
doubtless  conclude,  that  here  were  two  extremes, 
and  that  a  just  medium  was  necessary  to  be  drawn. 
This  was  undertaken  by  the   celebrated  Jonathan 


143  LETTER  VIIL 

Edwards,  and  may  be  seen  in  the  first  volume  of 
his  works.  He  however  declined  the  discussion  of 
the  relation,  rights  and  duties  of  baptised  children. 
He  speaks  of  their  being  members  of  the  church  in 
some  sort — but  not  in  full  and  complete  standing — 
he  speaks  of  their  becoming  adult,  and  falling 
short  of  the  qualifications  for  the  Lord's  table  and 
yet  not  cast  out  of  the  church,  but  continuing  mem- 
bers in  some  respect.  But  what  sort  of  members 
they  are,  or  in  what  respect  they  are  members,  he 
does  not  attempt  to  tell.*  The  qualifications  of 
adults  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table, 
he  labours  through  a  large  octavo  volume ;  and 
were  he  treating  merely  of  adults  from  the  world, 
applying  for  admission  into  the  church  and  to  her 
sealing  ordinances,  no  reasonable  objection  could 
be  urged  against  his  views.  One  of  the  forms  of 
profession,  with  which  he  says  he  would  be  content, 
although  he  would  not  wish  to  be  confined  to  it,  is  as 
follows — "  I  hope  I  do  truly  find  a  heart  to  give  up 
myself  wholly  to  God  according  to  the  tenor  of  that 

*  When  my  viezos  were  known  to  some  of  my  breth- 
ren, they  referred  me  to  President  Edwards,  as  one  zcho 
would  give  me  clear,  and  correct  views,  with  respect  to 
the  qualifications,  and  characters  of  all  zvho  should  be 
permitted  to  commune.  1  confess  that  I  read  him  with 
no  little  interest  and  profit ;  but  on  the  subject  of  baptiz- 
ed children  I  was  unhappily  disappointed.  He  takes 
them,  and  the  world  up  together,  and  thus  treats  them 
as  he  treats  aliens  and  foreigners;  and  inno  sort  at 
members. 


LETTER  Ylii.  149 

covenant  of  grace,  which  was  sealed  in  my  baptism; 
and  to  walk  in  a  way  of  that  obedience  to  all  the 
commandments  of  God,  which  the  covenant  of  grace? 
requires,  as  long  as  I  live.*' 

Again,  "  nor  do  I  think  it  improper  for  a  minister 
to  acquire,  and  know  of  the  candidate  what  can  be 
remembered  of  the  circumstances  of  his  christrian 
experience ;  as  this  may  tend  much  to  illustrate  his 
profession,  and  give  a  minister  great  advantage  for 
proper  instructions;  though  knowledge  and  remem- 
brance of  the  time,  and  method  of  the  first  conver- 
sion to  God,  is  not  to  be  made  a  test  of  a  person's 
sincerity,  nor  insisted  on  as  necessary  in  order  to 
his  being  received  into  full  charity.  Not  that  I 
think  it  at  all  improper,  or  unprofitable  that,  in 
some  special  cases,  a  declaration  of  the  particular 
circumstances  of  a  persons  first  conversion  and  the 
manner  of  his  convictions,  illuminations  and  com- 
forts should  be  publicly  exhibited  before  the  whole 
congregation,  on  occasion  of  his  admission  into  the 
church;  though  this  be  not  demanded  as  necessary 
to  admission.  I  ever  declared  against  insisting  on 
a  relation  of  experiences*  in  this  sense,  (viz.  a  rela- 
tion of  the  particular  time  and  steps  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  spirit,  in  first  conversion,)  and  the  term 
of  communion:  yet  if  by  a  relation  of  experiences, 
be  meant,  a  declaration  of  experience  of  the  great 
things  wrought,  wherein  time,  grace,  and  the  essen- 
tia^ acts  and  habits  of  holiness  consists:  in  this  sense* 


150  LETTER  VW. 

I  think  an  account  of  a  person's  experiences  neces- 
sary in  order  to  full  communion  in  the  church."- 

You  may  complain  of  some  obscurity  in  the  dis- 
tinctions which  he  makes;  but  it  is  evident  that  he 
did  not  make  regeneration,  or  a  narrative  of  expe- 
riences, as  satisfactory  proof  of  regeneration,  the 
ground  of  admission  to  the  church  and  the  Lord's 
Table,  by  the  officers  of  the  church;  and  at  the 
same  time  he  insists  on  experimental  religion  as  es- 
sential to  a  true,  genuine  member  of  the  church, 
and  to  eternal  life.  This  he  maintains  throughout 
his  treatise.  And  had  he  disposed  of  baptized  chil- 
dren and  shown  from  the  scriptures,  what  standing, 
rights  and  privileges  they  are  entitled  to  in  the 
church,  his  book  would  have  been  of  incalculably 
more  benefit  to  the  citizens  ofZion. 

President  Edwards  had  opposers,  particularlv  a 
Mr.  Williams,  and  Lis  own  congregation,  in  North- 
hampton, Massachusetts.  In  the  American  chur- 
ches, farther  south,  great  contentions  prevailed.  A 
schism  took  place  among  the  Presbyterians,  and  it 
is  said,  one  party  excommunicated  the  other.!  Time 
and  grace  healed  the  breach,  but  uniformity  of  views 
^and  practice,  with  respect  to  the  terms  of  commun- 
ion, does  not  yet  prevail  it)  the  Presbyterian  church, 

*  Preface  to  a  sermon  prefixed  to  vol.  i.  of  Edward's 
Works. 

\For  this  and  some  other  facts  slated  I  am  indebted 
to  sortie  aged,  people,  who  recollect  the  doings  of  those 

days,  or  had  them  from  their  parents. 


LETTER  VIIJ.  151 

The  reformed  thurch,  which  claims  lobe  the  ori- 
ginal reformed  church  from  popery,  in  the  united 
kingdoms  of  Great  Britain  and  is  known  more  gen- 
erally under  the  name  of  Covenanters,  declares, 
through  one  of  her  distinguished  Doctors,  that,  "  we 
are  not  to  receive  a  man  to  communion  merely  he- 
cause  he  is  regenerate,  nor  are  we  to  reject  him  mere- 
ly because  he  is  unregenereite.'''  Among  other  rea- 
sons which  he  assigns,  1  shall  give  three. 

1.  "We  are  not  officers  of  the  invisible  church, 
Saintship  is.  in  it,  the  criterion  of  membership. 

2.  "  It  is  impossible  that  regeneration  is  the  crite- 
rion of  membership  in  the  visible  church:  no  mere 
man  can  judge  the  heart.  Upon  this  principle  we 
never  could  associate  in  the  church  with  confidence. 
We  cannot  be  certain  of  one  another's  regeneration. 

3.  "  The  principle,  that  regeneration  is  the  cri- 
terion of  membership,  is  pregnant  with  much  mis- 
chief. It  encourages  ignorance  in  ministers — it  is 
<m  engine  of  tyranny — it  encourages  spiritual  pride : 
it  is  destructive  of  piety;  the  church  upon  my  ad- 
mission has  pronounced  me  regenerate.  I  have  no 
need  of  self  examination.  It  encourages  licentious- 
ness. It  is  a  certain  method  of  banishing  saints 
from  the  church  and  of  receiving  hypocrites."     Ac- 

ording  to  this  writer,  the  qualifications  for  admis- 
sion into  the  church,  or  to  any  of  its  privileges  are 
these,  the  candidate  must  "  knowingly  profess  a 
belief  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ;  promise  submission 
to  all   his  institutions:  evidence  repentence  of  all 


152?  LETTER  VIII. 

his  sins,  and  manifest  no  prevailing  inclination  to  any 
kind  of  wickedness.* 

In  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  a  writer  of 
high  standing,  distinguishes  between  the  terms  of 
admitting  adults  into  the  church  from  tie  world, 
and  the  admission  of  her  children,  to  her  peculiar 
privileges.  With  respect  ^o  admitting  adult  mem- 
bers, he  says,  '•  upon  the  whole  we  may  conclude, 
that  an  adult*  in  order  to  his  right  reception  into 
the  christian  church. 

Must  be  acquainted,  with  at  least  the  leading 
doctrines  of  revelation : 

Must  be  able  to  give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is 
in  him/'  by  showing  that  these  doctrines  have  ope- 
rated upon  his  experience: 

Must  make  an  open,  unequivocal  avowal  of  the 
Redeemer's  name:  and, 

Must  be  vigilant  in  the  habitual  discharge  of  his 
religious  and  moral  duty. 

He  in  whom  these  things  meet,  is  a  christian,  and 
to  be  recognized  as  such  by  the  christian  church.*'! 
The  four  following  terms  of  admission  are  discar- 
ded by  this  writer,  and  by  the  church  to  which  he 
belonged. 

1 .  A  general  profession  of  Christianity. 

2.  Soundness  in  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  with- 

*Df*A.McLeocPs  Ecclesiastical  Catechism.     Que?. 
22,  and  26.  and  Note  B. 
\ Christian's  Magazine,  Fbl.  i.  278. 


LETTER  VIII.  153 

out  scrutiny  into  particular  character,  or  without 
solicitude  on  that  point. 

3.  Doctrinal  soundness  combined  with  fair  mor- 
als. 

4.  Religious  experience,  and  regeneration. 
With  respect  to  the  children  of  believers,  they 

are  in  the  church ;  and  the  relations  and  benefits  of 
the  covenant,  are  theirs  by  hereditary  descent,  ac- 
cording to  this  writer.  And  they  are  "  bound  to 
own  their  relation  to  the  church  of  God  by  profes- 
sing the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  showing 
forth  his  death  in  the  communion  of  the  holy  sup- 
per, and  walking  in  all  his  ordinances  and  com- 
mandments blameless."* 

I  have  not  the  means  of  ascertaining  precisely  the 
terms  laid  down  by  other  denominations  of  protes- 
tants,  for  admission  into  the  church ;  and  for  the  ad- 
mission of  baptized  children  to  the  Lord's  Table.  The 
Presbyterian  church  has  been  as  specific  as  any  other 
in  her  directory:  Chap.  ix.  After  speaking  of  the 
manner  of  admitting  baptized  children:  Sect.  i.  to 
the  table  of  the  Lord,  the  mode  of  admitting  unbap- 
tized  persons  into  the  church  is  stated,  sect.  iv.  The 
third  section  says,  that "  those  who  are  to  be  admit- 
ted to  sealing  ordinances  shall  be  examined  as  to 
their  knowledge  and  piety."     Are  we  to    under- 

*Christians  Magz.vol.  i.  274-184.  Vol.  ii.  409- 
416.  This  authors  essays  on  the  church  of  God  arc  zvor- 
ihi)  the  perusal  ofezery  theologian. 


154  LETTER  VIII. 

t 

stand  this  as  confounding  baptized  children  and  the 
mode  of  admitting  them,  expressed  in  section  first, 
with  the  unbaptized  adults  and  their  admission, 
section  fourth?  or  does  it  mean  that  church  officers 
shall  examine  all,  with  respect  to  their  knowledge 
and  piety,  so  often  as  they  admit  them  to  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper?  This  latter  is  the  most 
natural  construction,  and  coincides  with  the  views 
expressed  by  some,  viz.  that  known  piety,  or  as  they 
express  it,  satisfactory  evidence  of  regeneration,  is 
the  ground  upon  which  church  officers  are  to  ad- 
mit to  the  Lord's  Table.  Now  if  this  be  so,  when 
any,  who  have  by  a  mere  profession  of  piety,  ob- 
tained a  seat  at  the  Lord's  Table,  manifest  that  they 
have  not  piety — are  not  regenerated,  they  are  to 
be  admitted  no  longer;  that  is,  they  are  to  be  vir- 
tually excommunicated.  I  have  however  found 
none  that  thus  consistently  carry  out  their  own  prin- 
ciple. All  Presbyterian  church  sessions  fail  to  cast 
out  from  the  communion  those  professors,  who 
merely  fail  to  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  their 
regeneration.  They  all  have  to  lament  that  hy- 
pocrisy and  formality  prevail  in  their  congregations: 
and  many  will  say,  "  had  we  the  same  evidence  of 
such,  and  such  member's  hypocrisy;  and  had  we 
wanted  the  evidence  which  we  now  do,  of  their  be- 
ing regenerated,  when  we  admitted  them  to  sealing, 
ordinances  we  certainly  would  have  refused  to  do 
so."  But  if  the  section  in  the  directory  re^pectir.s; 
knowledge  and  piety,  be  thus  understood  and  ap- 


LETTER  IX.  155 

plied  by  them  in  admitting  to  the  Lord's  Table, 
why  not  understand  and  apply  it  in  the  same  way* 
in  debarring?  If  a  man  is  once  examined  with  res- 
pect to  his  piety,  and  obtains  admission  to  the  Lord's 
Table,  must  he  never  be  examined  again  and  de- 
barred when  no  piety  is  manifested — must  he  al- 
ways commune,  until  guilty  of  something  worse 
than  the  want  of  piety,  or  regeneration?  It  is  evi- 
dent there  is  inconsistency  here ;  and  that  those  who 
substitute  regeneration  in  the  room  of  piety,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  directory  and  make  this  the  rule  of 
admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  the  officers  of 
the  church,  do  not  carry  out  their  own  principle. 

If  I  understand  the  language  of  the  directory, 
the  Presbyterian  church,  does  not  differ  materially 
from  the  two  last  mentioned  churches. 

I  am  vours,  &c. 


LETTER  9. 

Some  objections  answered*,  and  additional  considerations-* 

Dear  Sir: 

Matters  of  fact,  and  the  holy  scrip- 
tures,  to  those  who  admit  them  to  be  the  wrord  of 
God — the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
ought  to  be  more  decisive  on  any  subject  than  an- 
cient customs  or  the  opinions  and  practices  of  men. 
You  must  perceive  that  these  have  constituted  my 


156  LETTER  IX. 

chief  resort  in  the  preceding  investigation,  it  has 
been  my  aim  to  ascertain  facts,  and  what  saith  the 
law  and  the  testimony?  Certain  topics  were  thus 
introduced,  which  furnish  strong  arguments  in  sup- 
port of  the  position  taken,  but  which  according  to 
my  plan  could  only  be  noticed  in  a  cursory  manner. 
To  obviate  objections  and  to  leave  no  ground  for 
evasion,  it  is  necessary  to  resume  some  of  these  to- 
pics. 

It  was  taken  for  granted,  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
has  come  in  the  room  of  the  passover,  or  that  one 
is  a  continuation  of  the  other,  with  some  alteration, 
with  respect  to  the  bloody  symbols.  It  was  not  sup- 
posed that  this  would  be  denied  by  any  Pasdobap- 
tist  or  Presbyterian.  In  this  1  have  been  mistaken. 
It  has  been  boldly  asserted  that  the  Lordrs  Supper 
has  not  come  in  the  room  of  the  passover — and  that 
therefore  the  law  of  the  one  does  not  regulate  the 
other.  So  say  our  baptist  brethren  with  respect  to 
circumcision  and  baptism  and  certainly  with  much 
more  apparent  reason.  Yet  my  Presbyterian  breth- 
ren reject  both  their  assertion  and  their  reason. 
They  are  also  at  issue  with  their  own  Confession  of 
Faith,  with  Calvin,  Witsius,  and  other  of  their  favour- 
ite fathers — and  what  is  more  with  the  word  of 
God. 

What  says  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  this  sub- 
ject; "the  Sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  in  re- 
gard  of  the  spiritual  things  thereby  signified  and 


LETTER  IX.  15? 

exhibited,  were  for  substance  the  same  with  those 
of  the  new.* 

In  support  of  this  declaration,  the  following  texts 
are  found  in  the  margin,  and  those  who  put  them 
there,  understood  them  as  containing  something  like 
proof:  "Moreover  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye 
should  be  ignorant,  how,  that  all  our  fathers  were 
under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea  and 
were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea,  and  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,  and 
did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink,  (for  they 
drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them,  and 
that  rock  was  christ.)"'t  "  Purge  out,  therefore,  the 
old  leaven  that  ye  may  be  a  new  lump,  as  ye  are 
unleavened.  For  even  Christ,  our  passover  is  sac- 
rificed for  us.  Therefore,  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not 
with  old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  of  malice 
and  wickedness,  but  with  the  unleavened  bread  of 
sincerity  and  truth.*7!  But  our  saviour  at  the  time 
of  instituting  his  New  Testament  supper,  appears 
to  decide  this  question  beyond  all  cavil. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  table  of 
the  Lord,  in  the  celebration  of  the  last  passover, 
was  the  table  of  the  Lord,  in  the  first  celebration 
of  his  New  Testament  supper.  It  was  not  even 
drawn  and  spread  again.  The  body  and  blood  of 
the  paschal  lamb,  were  not  again  presented ;  but 
the  bread  and  wine  were — and  for  what  purpose? 

*Chap.  xxvii.  Sec.  v.  |1  Cor.  x.  1.  2.  3.  4.  tl  Cor, 
v.  7.  8. 

O 


138  LETTER  TX, 

Why,  says  the  Saviour, you  have  just  had  the  blood 
of  the  Old  Testament  sprinkled:  you  have  made  use 
of  the  body  of  the  lamb,  and  of  the  bread  and  wine ; 
all  these  belonged  to  the  Old  Testament.  I  bow 
give  you  the  same  bread  as  significant  of  my  body, 
and  henceforward,  it  stands  in  the  room  of  the  body 
of  the  paschal  lamb.  I  give  you  the  same  cup  of 
the  passover — but  now  it  is  the  cup  of  the  jVey,  not 
of  the  Old  Testament  significant  of  my  blood  shed 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  How  would  the  disciples 
of  our  Saviour  understand  him?  Or  what  was  his 
language  calculated  to  teach  them?  That  his  table 
and  the  passover  were  swept  away?  That  nothing 
of  the  same  nature  and  uses  and  for  the  same  kind 
of  characters  could  be  found,  but  "an  entirely  new 
ordinance,  new  table,  new  regulations,  new  sym- 
bols and  new  communicating  subjects.  Certainly 
not.  Examine  the  evangelists  once  more  on  this  sub- 
ject. How  readest  thou?  With  respect  to  the  pass- 
over  and  Lord's  supper,  I  read  thus:  "And  he  said 
unto  them,  with  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this 
passover  with  you  before  I  suffer;  for  I  say  unto 
you,  I  will  not  any  more  eat  thereof,  until  (the 
meaning  of)  it  be  fulfilled  (by  my  death)  in  the; 
Kingdom  of  God  (the  Gospel  dispensation.)  "And 
he  took  the  cup,  (probably  the  third  cup  which  the 
Jews  used  in  the  passover,)  and  gave  thanks,  (as 
they  usually  did,)  and  said,  take  this  and  divide  it 
among  yourselves,  for  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not 
drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  the  Kingdom  o% 


LETTER  LV.  i5f 

Gccl  (the  Gospe  !  b  or  dispensation)  shall 
come." 

So  much  he  spake  concerning  the  elements  of  the 
over  before  he  exhibited  the  new  form  of  the 
tame  ordinance  as  suited  to  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion :  then  he  proceeds  with  his  New  Testament 
passover,  in  these  words  "and  he  took  bread*'  cer- 
tainly some  of  the  unleavened  bread  just  used  in 
the  passover,  ar:d  crave  thanks  and  brake  it.  and 
gave  unto  them  saying:  tins  is  (a  symbolical  repre- 
sentation of)  my  body  "which  is  (aboutto  be)  given 
for  you.  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Like- 
wise also  the  cup  after  supper,  (beirg  the  fourth 
cup  of  the  passover,  according  to  Jewish  u?:r  .' 
saving,  this  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood, 
which  is  (about  to  be)  shed  for  you."  Luke  xxii. 
15-20.     Markxiv.  25. 

On  these  passages  I  remark — 

1.  That,  by  the  kingdom  of  God,  here  mention- 
ed, we  must  understand  the  reign  of  Christ,  in  hie 
church.  -  resurrection,  here  on  earth.  For 
the  passover  is  not  to  be  fulfilled,  and  the  fruit  of 
the  vine  to  be  used  in  Heaven. 

2.  When  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  come,  then 
the  passover,  as  far  as  typical,  should  be  fulfilled, 
but  the  cup,  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  should  be  drank 
by  our  Saviour;  that  is.  the  same  symbol  should  be 

i  by  him  and  his  disciples,  in  the  passover.     K 
would   drink  it   new  in  the   Kingdom.     How  new* 
Why,  with  respect  to  the  new  dispensation  or  tes* 


*60  LETTER  IX, 

lament.  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  bfe  * . 
The  cup  is  not  a  new  symbolical  cup.  but  it  is  to 
be  drank  new.  The  table  of  the  lord  is  not  to  be 
a  new  table,  nor  the  symbols  spread  on  it  new  sym- 
bol?, but  two  oi'  (he  old  symbols  are  to  be  used  as- 
the  symbols  o  .  •  ,ent.     But  by  v.  horn  i 

Are  any  who  partook  of  them  formerly,  now  to  be 
debarred?  Let  this  be  shewn. 

If  my  brethren  will  still  insist  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  neither  a  continuation  of,  nor  a  substitute 
for  the  passover,  but  that  it  is  a  new  ordinance,  gov- 
erned by  new  laws,  and  little  children  are  to  be  ex- 
cluded for  want  of  express  authority,  admitting 
them,  in  the  New  Testament,  they  must  carry  the 
exclusion  still  farther  and  exclude  all  females.     For 
I  may  venture  to   challenge  the  production  of  ei- 
ther precept  or  example,  of  female  communion  in 
the  New  Testament.     I  may  be  told  that  the  pre- 
cept in  1  Cor.  xi.  28:  "Let  a  man  examine  himself 
him  eat,*5  embraces  women — that  the 
word  utnJthrtypos  in  the   original,  translated  man,  is 
imon  gender,  and   includes  both  male  and  fe 
,  or  mankind,  and  ef  course  women  are  inch*- 
and  commanded   to  partake.     If  the  right  of 
women  to  commune   rests  on  this   precept,  ifc  is  a 
thread.     It  may  be  granted  that  antkropo 
-   used  including  both  sexes,  but  it 
is  also  freque:  tly  used  to  designate  man  as  opposed 
excluding  woman,  as  the  following  passage 
will  prove: 


LETTER  IX.  161 

Mat.  xix.  3.  "Is  it  lawful  for  a  man,  (anthropos) 
to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause?"  v.  5.  "For 
this  cause  shall  a  man  (anthropos)  leave  father  and 
mother  and  cleave  to  his  wife:"  v.  10.  "If  the  case 
of  a  man  (anthropos)  be  so  with  his  wife,  it  is  not 
good  to  marry."  Here  are  three  instances  where 
the  word  anthropos  is  used  to  exclude  women.  But 
lest  it  should  be  said  that  the  gospel  by  Matthew  is 
a  translation  from  Hebrew  to  Greek,  and,  there- 
fore, not  as  accurate  in  language  as  other  books — 
I  will  cite  you  to  a  passage  from  the  apostle  Paul 
himself,  in  this  same  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  la 
the  first  verse  of  the  7th  chapter,  he  says,  "now  con~- 
cerning  the  things  whereof  ye  wrote  unto  me,  it  is 
good  for  a  man  (anthropos)  not  to  touch  a  woman.'* 
Now  sir,  I  ask,  is  it  safe  to  rest  the  right  of  females 
to  admission  to  the  Lord's  Table,  on  the  meaning 
of  a  word  which  at  best  is  equivocal,  and  used  by 
the  same  apostle  and  at  least  one  other  New  Tes- 
tament writer  to  exclude  woman  from  the  meaning. 
The  precept  relied  on,  therefore,  fails,  and  does  not 
necessarily  include  women,  and  there  is  no  exam- 
ple expressly  in  point,  and  the  demand  may  be 
made  of  my  opponents,  to  produce  their  warrant 
for  such  a  practice.  Now  nothing  is  more  easy  on 
the  old  and  well  matured  doctrine  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  has  succeeded  the  passover  and  is  govern- 
ed by  the  same  law.  Instances  enough  can  be  pro- 
duced by  way  of  example,  as  well  as  precept  suffi- 
ciently plain,  proving  that  women  are  entitled  to 


162  LETTER  IX. 

admission  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  the  right  of 
children  rests  on  the  same  base,  and  it  is  not  con-= 
sistent  to  admit  one,  by  the  law  of  the  passover  and 
yet  exclude  the  other^  when  the  law  is  equally 
plain,  with  respect  to  both. 

One  consideration  more. — 

The  passover  was  a  distinguishing,  significant, 
and  commemorating  ordinance.  Are  not  these  the 
great  objects  of  the  Lord's  Supper?  Did  not  the 
people  of  God  hold  communion  with  him  at  his 
table  in  the  passover  through  the  symbols  of  Christ's 
sacrifice,  and  do  not  his  people  hold  communion 
with  him  at  his  table  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  through 
the  symbols  of  the  same  sacrifice?  You  must  per- 
ceive Sir,  that  the  cause  which  requires  its  advo- 
cates to  deny  that  the  T word's  supper  has  come  in 
the  room  of  the  passover,  or  is  substantially  a  con- 
tinuation of  it,  is  a  cause  that  needs  new  measures 
and  a  very  daring  spirit.  A  remark  was  made  in  a 
former  letter,  and  a  promise  given  to  make  it  good, 
that  to  debar  church  members  from  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, involves  the  question  of  their  .membership,  and 
is  a  virtual  excommunication  of  them.  In  support 
of  this  position  the  following  proof  is  submitted: 

Much  importance  is  attached  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures to  religious  and  Church  VISIBILITY.  Our 
Saviour  has  clearly  taught  us  that  we  must  confess 
him  before  men,  if  we  would  be  his  followers.  We 
must  come  out  and  be  separate,  or  he  will  not  re 


LETTER  IX.  it- 

ccive  us.     If  we  are  ashamed  of  him  before  men, 

he  will  be  ashamed  of  us  before  his  Father. 

One  i{reat  object  of  the  sealing  ordinances,  both 
under  the  Old  and  New  Testament  is  to  give  visi- 
bility to  the  church  and  her  members.  This  was 
one  important  use  of  all  the  religions  rites  and  cere- 
monies given  to  the  Israelites.  Even  day  a  \ 
difference  was  made  in  some  form  or  other  between 
the  clean  and  unclean;  between  those  who  were 
members  of  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  and  those 
who  were  not.  Circumcision  and  all  the  sacriiice". 
including  the  passover  drew  a  visible  line  between 
the  holy  and  the  unholy.  There  was  then  no  visi- 
ble mingling  of  these  two  classes  together  in  reli- 
gious rites.  Was  it  an  object  or  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  abrogation  of  that  system  and  the  re- 
moval of  the  partition  wall,  that  the  people  of  the 
Lord  became  amalgamated  with  the  ungodly  world, 
and  no  visible  line  of  demarcation  between  the 
Kingdom  of  Christ  and  the  Kingdom  of  Satan  was 
left?  If  so,  the  church  instead  of  becoming  more 
gloriously  visible  by  the  appearance  of  Messiah, 
has  lost  her  visibility  altogether,  as  an  organized 
distinct  society.  As  she  now  is,  it  is  obvious  she  is 
merged  in  the  world.  A  sort  of  dovetailing  con- 
nexion exists,  and  in  none  of  her  ordinances  does 
she  stand  out  a  distinct  visible  body.  In  her  sacra- 
mental solemnities,  we  may  see  a  few,  and  often- 
times comparatively  few,  communicants  surround- 
ed by  a  great  number  of  children  and  youth,  which 


164  LETTER  IX. 

by  the  language  of  her  confession?,  and  the  once  re- 
pealed rite  of  baptism,  are  declared  to  be  rnenv 
hers;  by  some  a  partial  or  particular  kind  of  mem- 
bers, and  in  common  practice,  all  nondescripts  min- 
gled and  blended  with  the  world,  assigned  practic- 
ally by  the  church  to  Satan's  Kingdom,  but  for- 
mally admitted  to  be  members.  It  is  immaterial 
how  moral  or  even  pious  they  may  be,  they  still  are 
classed  with  the  world;  or  however  immoral  and 
disorderly  they  are,  still  they  are  not  excommuni- 
cated, and  are  classed  with  the  church.  Thus  the 
line  of  demarcation  between  the  church  and  the 
world,  cannot  be  perceived  by  human  eyes.  This 
state  of  things  did  not  exist  in  the  apostle's  days, 
nor  ought  it  to  exist  now.  When  the  daily  sacri- 
fice was  taken  away;  when' the  ceremonial  distinc- 
tion of  meats  and  drinks;  of  clean  and  unclean 
ceased,  how  was  the  church  of  God  still  made  a 
separate,  visible,  distinct  body?  Not  by  baptism. 
For  this  being  but  once  administered  and  leaving 
no  visible  mark  on  the  body,  did  not  distinguish 
from  the  world  those  who  enjoyed  it.  Preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  public  prayer  and  praise  are  not 
now  distinguishing  ordinances.  The  two  latter 
were  used  as  such  by  the  early  christian  church. 
We,  however,  consider  none  distinguishing  and  seal- 
ing ordinances,  but  baptism  and  Ihe  Lord's  Supper. 
And  as  baptism  docs  at  no  one  time  exhibit  visibly 
the  Church  of  Clwist  in  any  place,  the  whole  busi- 
ness of  giving  visibility  to  the  church  which  was  ac* 


LETTER  IX.  165 

[shed  by  all  the  sacrifices  and  religious  rites 
tinder  the  law,  devolves  upon  the  single  ordinance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  accounts  for  the  week- 
ly and  even  daily  celebration  of  that  ordinance  by 
the  apostles  and  the  Christian  Church,  until  the 
third  or  fourth  century. 

The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  exhibited  in  this  ordi- 
nance, and  therefore  it  stands  not  only  in  the  room 
of  the  passover  sacrifice,  but  of  all  the  sacrifices 
which  prefigured  Christ  and  drew  the  seperating 
line  of  visibility  between  the  people  of  God  and  the 
people  of  the  world.  This  to  my  mind  is  a  satisfac- 
tory reason  for  the  Lord's  Supper  being  daily  cele- 
brated; whereas  the  passover  was  celebrated  but 
once  a  year.  Believers  were  added  to  the  church 
daily  by  baptism,  but  how  were  they  to  be  daily  ex- 
hibited as  one  visible  body  with  all  its  accessions? 
Not  at  all,  unless  by  the  Lord's  Supper — the  New 
Testament  passover,  from  which  all  but  the  church 
members  were  excluded.  The  walls  of  the  house 
as  we  have  already  seen  formed  the  separating  line. 
The  visible  members  of  Christ's  kingdom  were  with- 
in, and  the  visible  members  of  Satan's  kingdom 
were  without,  every  time  this  distinguishing  ordi* 
nance  was  administered.  Resort  might  be  had  to 
the  records  and  registry  of  the  church,  if  any  were 
kept  to  ascertain  whether  a  pers©n  were  baptized, 
and  in  good  legal  standing,  yet  the  records  and  re- 
gistry did  not  habitually  and  visibly  exhibit  the 
church  and  the  world  as  two  separate  b.-><ii(<>.  hr*. 


166  LETTER  IX; 

cause  the  registry  is  a  mere  measure  of  convenient 
kept  for  evidence  to  the  church  itself.  Indeed  I 
might  have  assumed,  without  attempting  to  prove, 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  distinguishing  ordinance. 
This  idea  is  advanced  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  as 
one  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church.  It  is  there  said 
that  one-of  the  uses  of  a  sacrament  is  "to  put  a  vi- 
sible difference  "between  those  that  belong  unto  the 
church  and  the  rest  of  the  world ;"  and  that  while 
it  is  used  to  testify  ar  d  cherish  love  and  commun- 
ion between  church  .'-i  Is  also  used  to  dis- 
tinguish them  frc  ose  e  without.*  But 
without  resc  ai  'I  con- 
ceive fch  -  ~id- 
h                                                A  first  Corintb;ar.s,  in 

aalo  -y  or  rather  iden- 

•een  the  Jewh  and  Christian  Church,  and 
in  the  -;£nifieation  of  the  ordinances  of  the  church 
in  every  age,  and  also  argues  from  the  ordinances 
the  unity  and  community  of  the  church  as  opposed 
to  the  world,  and  makes  mention  of  the  ordinance 
of  the  supper  as  the  distinguishing  rite  of  the 
church,  and  then  concludes  "you  cannot  drink  of 
the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  devils;  ye  can- 
not be   partakers  of  the   table  of  the   lord  and  the 

devils."  I  say,  suppose  no  one  who  will 
candidly  read  this  chapter  and  understand  it,  would 
require  any  other  proof,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  h 

*Con.  F,  Choi),  xxvii.  Sec.  I.  Large  Cat.  Quest. 
162. 


LETTER  IX.  167 

the  distinguishing  ordinance  which  draws  the  line 
between  the  church  and  world.  1  do  not  exclude 
the  idea  of  the  church  shining  in  the  holy  lives  of 
her  members  and  thus  becoming  visible ;  but  I  speak 
of  her  and  her  members  as  constituting  an  organiz- 
ed and  visible  body,  separate  from  the  world  br- 
acts cognizable  by  the  senses  of  every  one ;  and 
in  this  sense,  I  trust  Sir,  you  will  agree,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  scriptures  the  ground  of  visible 
membership  is  narrowed  to  the  single  ordinance  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Therefore,  if  you  debar  any 
church  members  from  that  ordinance  that  are  able 
to  come  and  partake  of  it  in  an  orderly  manner, 
you  unchurch  them;  you  declare  before  the  world 
that  they  are  not  members,  by  throwing  them  out 
with  the  world.  But  baptized  children  of  three 
years  of  age,  or  of  any  age  when  infancy  ends  with 
the  Lord's  nurture  and  admonition,  their  coven- 
ant birthright,  are  capable  of  coming  and  partak- 
ing of  that  ordinance  in  an  orderly  manner;  There- 
fore, when  they  are  debarred  they  are  unchurched, 
they  are  declared  to  be  no  church  members.  You 
may  say  that  this  position  and  reasoning  will  prove 
too  much,  as  it  will  prove  that  all  suspended  mem- 
bers and  all  who  are  not  in  good  standing  are  un- 
churched and  have  lost  their  membership.  I  reply 
that  in  all  such  cases  there  is  implied  a  forfeiture  of 
membership,  and  for  the  time  being  it  is  taken  from 
them,  with  the  understanding  that  they  are  not  to 
enjoy  it  again  without  repentance.     Suspension  is- 


168  LETTER  IX, 

temporary  excommunication,  and  excommunication 
is  a  cutting  off  from  the  church  and  her  distinguish- 
ing privileges.  A  member  who  is  not  in  good  stand- 
ing in  the  church,  is  supposed  to  be  under  charges 
and  a  process  of  trial,  and  if  that  terminates  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  God,  he  is  either  in  good 
standing,  or  has  no  standing  at  all,  in  the  church. 
But  how  will  the  objection  apply  to  little  children 
who  are  neither  suspended  nor  are  under  process  be- 
fore the  church?  They  are  members,  and  members 
in  good  standing  until  charges  are  brought,  and  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  passed.  Separate  them 
from  their  parents  at  the  Lord's  Table,  and  throw 
them  among  the  people  of  the  world,  and  you  un- 
church them,  without  a  charge  or  a  hearing.  This 
Sir,  is  a  high-handed  doing,  which  certainly  re- 
quires the  high  authority  of  Heaven  for  its  justifi- 
cation. 

We  have  seen  from  evidence  satisfactory,  thai 
little  ones  were  of  old,  in  the  church  of  God.  In- 
fants were  circumcised,  and  little  ones  ate  the  pass- 
over.  If  they  were  once  m,  wre  ask  for  the  authori- 
ty which  puts  them  out  of  the  church.  Our  Sav- 
iour frequently  reproved  the  Jews  for  their  altera- 
tions and  additions  to  the  law  of  God  by  their  tra- 
ditions. That  little  ones  ate  the  passover  in  his  day, 
as  matter  of  historj  cannot  be  questioned,  yet  he 
never  reproved  the  Jews  for  this  as  corruption, 
though  year  after  year  he  attended  the  feast  of  the 
passover,  both  before  and  after  his  public  ministry 


LETTER  IX.  169 

commenced,  and  yet  he  never  once  intimated  to  the 
jews  that  they  were  profaning  the  passover,  by  the 
admission  of  little  ones.  tVe  must  from  his  silence 
draw  one  or  two  conclusions,  either  that  this  prac- 
tice had  his  approbation,  or  that  knowing  it  to  be  a 
profanation  of  the  ordinance,  he  so  far  failed  in  his 
duty  as  never  to  caution  his  nation  against  the  hor- 
rid deed.  The  latter  is  wholly  inadmissible;  the 
former  must,  therefore,  be  taken.  He  did  not  feel 
so  much  shocked  as  some  of  our  moderns  do  at  the 
thought  that  a  little  one  should  touch  the  august 
symbols  of  the  Saviour's  body  and  blood ;  and  these 
same  persons  can  without  any  concern  or  alarm  be- 
hold the  svmbol  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  august 
person  in  the  adorable  Trinity,  against  whom  blas- 
phemy committed  shall  never  be  forgiven,  adminis- 
tered to  unconscious  infants  who  cannot  have  the 
least  idea  of  the  ordinances.  To  be  consistent,  it 
is  conceived  they  ought  to  shudder  as  much  at  one 
administration  as  the  other. 

We  have  seen  that  our  Saviour  was  not  only  si- 
lent with  regard  to  excluding  children  from  the 
passover,  but  that  he  clearly  and  explicitly  admit- 
ted little  children  to  be  members  of  his  kingdom, 
and  spoke  of  their  receiving  his  kingdom,  and  of 
his  officers  receiving  them  into  his  kingdom.  We 
may  also  go  farther  and  see  that  he  adminstered  his 
supper  for  the  first  time  to  persons  who,  it  is  con- 
ceived could  not  pass  the  ordeal  which  moderns 

have  created  for  baptized  members,  and  sain  at  this 
P 


170  LETTER  IX. 

day  admission  to  the  same  supper.  A  little  exam- 
ination into  the  history  of  the  twelve  apostles  will 
prove  beyond  a  question,  that  they  had  made  but 
poor  progress  in  christian  knov,  ledge,  and  were  ve- 
ry ignorant  of  the  nature  of  that  Kingdom  into 
which  they  had  entered,  till  after  the  ascension  of 
Jesus,  notwithstanding  their  teacher  taught  and 
spake  as  never  man  spake.  He  had  told  them  that 
he  should  be  betrayed,  that  he  should  be  slain,  that 
he  should  rise  on  the  third  day.  Peter  took  offence 
at  this  and  told  his  master  that  this  should  not  be 
done,  and  thus  drew  from  our  lord  the  appellation 
of  Satan  applied  to  Peter  both  for  his  ignorance  and 
his  rashness.  How  often  did  they  enter  into  the 
controversy  among  themselves,  who  should  be  great- 
est in  that  temporal  kingdom,  which  they  believed 
our  Saviour  was  about  to  erect,  and  in  which  they 
conceived  they  were  to  have  honors  and  offices? 
Indeed  St.  Luke  tells  us  in  his  22d  Chap,  and  22 
verse,  that  even  on  the  very  evening  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  immediately  after  its  celehratio;.,  they 
stirred  this  controversy  even  to  strife,  and  then 
wanted  the  question  settled,  who  was  entitled  to 
the  greatest  share  of  temporal  honors.  On  that 
same  night,  although  so  much  had  been  said  and 
done  by  the  Saviour,  to  fit  them  for  the  crucifixion; 
and  after  he  had  exhibited  to  them  the  symbols  of 
his  broken  body  and  shed  blood,  they  all  forsook 
him  and  fled,  not  being  able  to  see  how  the  great 
temporal  redeemer  of  Israel,  which  they  believed 


LETTER  IX.  17"i 

.ii m  to  he.  could  be  crucified;  nor  were  they  wil- 
ling to  risk  themselves,  for  a  supposed  malefactor, 
when  they  expected  an  earthly  deliverer.  'TV hat 
ill  more,  the  three  appointed  days  rolled  round  j 
the  mighty  Conqueror  arose  from  the  tomb  as  he 
had  predicted,  and  as  he  had  assured  these  apos- 
tles, yet  the  report  of  his  resurrection  was  to  them 
as  idle  tales,  and  two  of  them  on  their  way  to  Em- 
maus,  wondered  what  these  things  could  mean,  and 
trusted  that  it  was  he  that  should  redeem  Israel9 
which  they  did  rot  then  suppose  possible.  They 
were  in  astonishment,  occasioned  by  their  own  ig- 
norance and  inattention,  so  much  so  that  our  Lord 
himself,  who  had  administered  his  supper  to  them 
so  lately,  now  pronounced  them  "fools  and  slow  of 
heart  "to  believe."  Never  indeed  till  the  descent 
of  the  spirit  did  they  understand  this  great  myste- 
ry or  comprehend  what  was  the  reign  of  which  Je- 
sus spoke  notwithstanding  they  were  church  mem- 
bers in  full  communion,  admitted  by  our  lord  him- 
self, and  that  at  the  administration  of  the  ordin- 
ance, which  he  designed  as  a  model  for  future  gen- 
erations. Now  Sir,  I  ask  you,  how  would  such  ap- 
plicants now  fare,  if  they  were  to  present  them- 
selves at  the  door  of  many  churches?  Would  it  not 
be  accounted  a  profanation  of  the  ordinance  to  ad- 
minister it  to  such  ignorant  believers?  But  1  still 
enquire,  and  entreat  a  candid  answer,  how  would 
such  communicants  appear  when  examined  beside 
the  little  children  after  they  have  had  the  Lord's 


172  LETTER  IX, 

nurture  and  admonition  in  the  present  day?  1  ask 
seriously  whether  these  little  members  could  not 
give  a  better  account  of  the  nature  of  the  Lord's 
Kingdom,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  feast  which  they 
were  about  to  celebrate,  than  the  twelve  apostles 
could  have  done,  on  the  night  of  its  first  celebration? 
I  will  venture  to  affirm  that  such  young  disciples 
could  more  clearly  discern  the  Lord's  body  in  the 
sense  contemplated  by  Paul,  as  exhibited  in  the 
feast  than  the  twelve  could  on  that  fatal  night,  and 
for  many  days  and  nights  afterwards.  It  certainly 
becomes  us  to  be  more  humble  learners  from  the 
acts  and  precepts  of  the  Saviour.  If  he  adminis- 
tered his  ordinance  to  those  who  were  ignorant  and 
only  sincere,  why  ought  we  to  be  so  afraid  of  pro- 
fanation. If  he  has  placed  infants  and  little  ones  in 
his  church  either  under  the  new  or  old  dispensation, 
we  ought  not  virtually  or  practically  to  exclude 
them,  without  a  4,thus  saith  the  lord,"  and  we  ought 
not  to  become  so  zealous  of  the  holiness  of  his  or- 
dinances, as  to  fear  profanation  and  abuse,  by  ex- 
cluding his  little  ones,  which  he  has  admitted,  for 
fear  of  their  ignorance  and  irreverence,  especially 
as  the  apostles  themselves  were  not  more  wise  in 
understanding  the  nature  of  the  ordinance,  when 
they  first  partook,  than  our  little  ones  may  be,  if 
rightly  taught  at  the  most  early  age  claimed  as 
proper  for  admission. 

I  have  now  Sir,  given  you  an  outline  of  the  ar- 
guments by  which  I  support  the  rights  of  baptized 


LETTER  IX.  173 

little  ones,  to  the  sealing  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  maintain  the  right  of  cutting  off  those  who 
will  not  partake.  They  are  not  as  full  as  might  be* 
and  ill  health  has  prevented  their  completion  in  the 
manner  intended.  I  ask  for  them  a  candid  and 
fair  hearing,  and  if  they  are  opposed  and  I  shall 
not  be  convinced  that  I  am  in  an  error,  I  trust  that 
I  shall  be  able,  if  spared,  to  corroborate  and  sus.* 
tain  any  that  I  have  advanced. 

Yours,  respectfully, 


THE  END, 


p* 


INDEX. 


Advertisement. 

Letter  I. — Introduction. — Documents,  and  certain  con- 
siderations which  are  given  as  reasons  for  agitating  the 
subject. 

Letter  II. — Common  ground  stated — The  relation  in 
which  Baptized  Children  stand  to  the  Church — Member- 
ship— Scriptural  view  of  it.  20 

Letter  III. — The  Rights  of  Children— Right  to  Baptism— 
To  a  good  Religious  education — and  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. 31 

Letter  IV7. — A  more  extensive  view  of  the  subject — Mi- 
nority,_and  *ts  different  classes — General  principle  of 
unity  between  Parents  and  Children — Reason  for  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Passover — Its  uses — That  little  children 
partook  of  it,  proved  42 

Letter  V. — The  subject  continued — Argument  from  the 
Congregation  ol  the  Lord — Elkanah  and  his  family — 
Passover  observed  by  King  Josiah — Jewish  practice — 
Certain  propositions  considered,  proved.  60 

Letter  VI. — The  Law  of  the  Passover  not  annulled — but 
in  force  with  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper — proved  from 
the  Scriptures;  and  that  little  children  did  partake  of 
this  ordinance  under  the  administration  of  the  Apostles.     77 

Letter  VII. — The  argument  continued — The  Holy  Scrip- 
tures further  considered.  105 

Letter  VIII. — Church  history— Ignatius — Primitive  chur- 
ches— Infant  communion — Church  of  Rome — Reformed 
churches — Difler  in  their  views  and  practice  in  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries — American  churches.        121 

Letter  IX.— Some  objections  answered,  and  additional 
considerations.  155 


